EAT (Victimisation Discrimination: Dismissal) The Claimant came to work three times dressed in jeans which he knew was a breach of the employer’s dress code. On the second occasion he was sent home to change and said he would dress more appropriately thereafter. When challenged about it on the second and third occasions (and in the subsequent disciplinary and appeal hearings) the Claimant challenged the dress code and its application on various grounds including that it was applied differently in relation to women and alleged that the employer was discriminating against him on grounds of sex.
He was dismissed ostensibly for breaching the dress code and disobeying management instructions but brought proceedings alleging that he had been victimised.
The Employment Tribunal’s reasons for upholding that claim were that ‘his questioning of the application of the dress code’ was a significant contributory factor in the decision to dismiss him. Strictly, the Employment Tribunal ought to have asked itself whether the allegations of sex discrimination amounted to such a factor. The Employment Tribunal’s reasons were also not adequate to explain why they had found against the employer.
In the circumstances the appeal was allowed and the finding of victimisation remitted to the Employment Tribunal.
Shanks HHJ
[2016] UKEAT 0310 – 15 – 1502
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.560982