Mr Dansie had started training as a police constable at the Hendon Training Centre on 17 March 2009. He had earlier inquired at an assessment visit whether the length of his hair would be acceptable and was told it would comply with the Metropolitan Police’s new dress code policy dated 13 April 2005. It said: ‘The standard of dress should be smart, fit for the purpose and portray a favourable impression of the service’. A separate piece of manager’s guidance on the dress code included the following clarification: ‘Hair must be neat, not allowed to cover the ears and…worn above the collar. For safety reasons, ponytails are not permitted and long hair must be neatly and securely fastened up and worn relatively close to the head.’
When Mr Dansie arrive a the Hendon centre, his hair, which was shoulder length, was slicked back on his head and tied in a bun at the back of his head. Once he had started the training programme, he was told to get his hair cut and threatened with disciplinary action if he did not comply. So, to avoid this and removal from the training programme, Mr Dansie complied and it was understood that any female recruit in similar circumstances would not have been issued with the same ultimatum. However, he felt he had been discriminated against and lodged a claim with the Employment Tribunal on 8 July 2008, claiming not only sex discrimination but also harassment.
The tribunal did not support this and found the dress policy gender neutral, maintaining that the law allows for a policy to be considered as a whole. This includes an allowance to be gender specific as well as gender neutral, provided it is ‘fair-handed between the sexes and fits within the conventions of society and the needs of the profession in question.’ The tribunal also confirmed that a female comparator who failed to comply with a gender neutral dress/appearance code necessary for this type of work, particularly when on basic training…would have been treated in the same way…’
Mr Dansie appealed, but the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the earlier decision and confirmed that the correct legal test had been applied and the Metropolitan Police’s dress code was equally balanced between the sexes. In other words, when applying contemporary standards and conventions as well as the specific needs of the profession under scrutiny, the employer’s dress code was, overall, asking its employees to display an equivalent level of smartness for males and females, as per Smith v Safeway Plc [1996] ICR 868 and DWP v Thompson [2004] IRLR 348. The insistence that Mr Dansie cut his hair did not amount to discrimination or harassment.
For further information on dress codes at work, see:
Dansie v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2009] UKEAT/0234/09