Schmidt v Austick’s Bookshops: EAT 1977

The bookshop company’s employment rules prohibited trousers for female workers, a dress code which was upheld by the Tribunal.
Held: There was no detriment. As there was no comparable restriction for men it was not possible to say that women were treated less favourably than men. Phillips J said: ‘if one considers the situation of the men and the situation of the women there was no comparable restriction which could be applied to the men, equivalent to that applied to the women preventing them from wearing trousers, which could make it possible to lead to the conclusion that the women were being treated less favourably than the men.’

Judges:

Phillips J

Citations:

[1977] IRLR 360, (1978) ICR 85

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

ApprovedBurrett v West Birmingham Health Authority CA 3-Mar-1994
Application for leave to appeal. . .
AppliedBurrett v West Birmingham Health Authority EAT 6-Dec-1993
Female nurses had to wear a cap whereas male nurses did not, though male nurses had to wear a tunic with epaulettes. They claimed discrimination.
Held: A requirement for female to wear a nurse’s cap where no similar rule applied for men, was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.408524

Comments are closed.