Rastafarian Loses Discrimination Claim
The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations prohibit direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, victimisation and harassment in the workplace on the grounds of any religion, religious or philosophical belief.
A man has lost his appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) that he was the victim of indirect discrimination because he is a Rastafarian and wears his hair in dreadlocks (Harris v NKL Automotive Ltd.).
Mr Harris worked as a driver for NKL Automotive through an agency. He complained that he was being given less work than the other agency drivers and, unlike some of them, he was not taken on by NKL Automotive as a full-time employee. The company felt that he did not represent it well but was willing to continue to use him as an agency driver, provided he tidied up his hair. The company had a dress code policy which required that drivers ‘should have a smart professional haircut and should ensure hair is tidy’.
Mr Harris felt that he was being discriminated against because of his Rastafarian beliefs and brought a claim for direct and indirect discrimination on the grounds of his philosophical beliefs and of victimisation discrimination.
The Employment Tribunal (ET) accepted that Rastafarianism is a religious belief within the meaning of the Regulations. However, it rejected the claim of direct discrimination because NKL Automotive did not know of Mr Harris’s Rastafarian beliefs. With regards to the claim of indirect discrimination, the ET found that Mr Harris had long hair when he was taken on as a driver and was not denied the opportunity of continuing as an agency driver provided his hair was tidy. A general standard of tidiness applied to all drivers and the ET took the view that to require hair to be tidy is a proportionate means of achieving the aim of a presentable appearance to customers.
The ET also concluded that Mr Harris had not been victimised by the agency but did not consider the allegation of victimisation by NKL Automotive. It did, however, conclude that the company had adopted a ‘dismissive and unfortunate approach when dealing with his grievance in a somewhat peremptory way’.
Mr Harris appealed against the finding that there was no indirect discrimination and alleged that the ET had not given proper consideration to the victimisation discrimination claim.
The EAT remitted the question of victimisation discrimination to the same ET for consideration. As regards the claim of indirect discrimination, it rejected Mr Harris’s argument that the requirement to have tidy hair is prejudicial to Rastafarians. In the EAT’s view, ‘if dreadlocks are compatible with tidy hair, or can be kept in a tidy manner, then the criterion does not in any way discriminate against those with dreadlocks’. The ET’s finding was that the company did not object to hair worn in dreadlocks if tidy.
A man has lost his appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) that he was the victim of indirect discrimination because he is a Rastafarian and wears his hair in dreadlocks (Harris v NKL Automotive Ltd.).
Mr Harris worked as a driver for NKL Automotive through an agency. He complained that he was being given less work than the other agency drivers and, unlike some of them, he was not taken on by NKL Automotive as a full-time employee. The company felt that he did not represent it well but was willing to continue to use him as an agency driver, provided he tidied up his hair. The company had a dress code policy which required that drivers ‘should have a smart professional haircut and should ensure hair is tidy’.
Mr Harris felt that he was being discriminated against because of his Rastafarian beliefs and brought a claim for direct and indirect discrimination on the grounds of his philosophical beliefs and of victimisation discrimination.
The Employment Tribunal (ET) accepted that Rastafarianism is a religious belief within the meaning of the Regulations. However, it rejected the claim of direct discrimination because NKL Automotive did not know of Mr Harris’s Rastafarian beliefs. With regards to the claim of indirect discrimination, the ET found that Mr Harris had long hair when he was taken on as a driver and was not denied the opportunity of continuing as an agency driver provided his hair was tidy. A general standard of tidiness applied to all drivers and the ET took the view that to require hair to be tidy is a proportionate means of achieving the aim of a presentable appearance to customers.
The ET also concluded that Mr Harris had not been victimised by the agency but did not consider the allegation of victimisation by NKL Automotive. It did, however, conclude that the company had adopted a ‘dismissive and unfortunate approach when dealing with his grievance in a somewhat peremptory way’.
Mr Harris appealed against the finding that there was no indirect discrimination and alleged that the ET had not given proper consideration to the victimisation discrimination claim.
The EAT remitted the question of victimisation discrimination to the same ET for consideration. As regards the claim of indirect discrimination, it rejected Mr Harris’s argument that the requirement to have tidy hair is prejudicial to Rastafarians. In the EAT’s view, ‘if dreadlocks are compatible with tidy hair, or can be kept in a tidy manner, then the criterion does not in any way discriminate against those with dreadlocks’. The ET’s finding was that the company did not object to hair worn in dreadlocks if tidy.
|
|
Tim Johnson |
Employers who impose dress code restrictions should take care that these can be justified and do not discriminate against employees of a particular race or those holding particular religious beliefs. Contact us if you would like advice on your dress code policy.
The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.
