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 not discriminatory. The fact that one feature of the female nurses’ uniform (which was believed by the applicant to be demeaning to women) was not required for male nurses did not amount to less favourable treatment of the female nurses than the male nurses.
Judges:
Knox J
Citations:
Ind Summary 06-Dec-1993, [1994] IRLR 7
Citing:
Applied – 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 . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Burrett v West Birmingham Health Authority CA 3-Mar-1994
Application for leave to appeal. . .
Cited – HM Land Registry v Grant EAT 15-Apr-2010
hmlr_grantEAT10
EAT SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION/TRANSEXUALISM
HARASSMENT – Conduct
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate Jurisdiction /Reasons /Burns-Barke
An Employment Tribunal accepted that 6 out of 12 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78754
