Gender equality

[BakerMayfield2018]

Would be an improvement over what your customers look at now.

 

[ski or die]

I found this useful, even if the court of law was Conservative and perhaps biased in the outcome..


"Equality Act 2010, allows employers to impose dress codes on both men and women employees. These codes must be equivalent in nature as a claim of direct sexual discrimination may ensue if an employer is found to have treated one sex more or less favourably than the other. Employers (given that their policies are reasonable) are permitted to dismiss employees if they do not conform after warnings and adequate time to comply.

However, case law has established that employers, naturally, do not have to impose the exact same dress code on both sexes. Numerous items of clothing and hair styles, for instance, are often gender specific, and so imposing such regulations on all employees, regardless of sex, would be far from “fair, just and reasonable”; the adopted test when concerning all policy consideration related cases. The courts, then, have entitled employers to treat sexes “differently but equally by the standard of what is conventional”.

The case of Smith v Safeway plc [1996] illustrated this principle and gave an up-to-date depiction of the court’s attitude in such appearance associated cases.

The case concerned whether treating sexes differently necessarily gives rise to sexual discrimination, specifically: imposing differing hair length restrictions for male and female employees.

The claimant was required to have his hair cut in order to comply with the company’s dress code or risk losing his job; this, in the claimant’s opinion, amounted to the favourable treatment of women and thus discriminatory.

However, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment and dismissed the claim, with Lord Justice Phillips stating that if a sex discrimination claim is to be successful, it must “show, not merely that the sexes are treated differently, but that the treatment accorded to one is less favourable than that accorded to the other”."

In essence, the courts have an old fashioned view, if you will, in regards to long hair. Long hair isn't (accordingly to the courts) as "smart" or "professional" as say, shorter, more conventional hair styles. If an employer (depending on the job) requires a

Interesting. I was clerical union. Was harassed quite a bit about length of my hair. Union refused to help. Went to EEOC. Won my case. Company never ever again approached me about my hair. Even grew a beard. Still have my copy of decision by EEOC. Case was before Smith v Safeway 1996. So legally, my case was determined before this one. Maybe Smith should have used my case as evidence that courts had determined discrimination.

 

[sailfish]

And with all that said, it's still a man's world with women lagging behind in far more ways.

I can't think of anywhere in the developed First World where this is the case.

 

[Operational needs]

I can't think of anywhere in the developed First World where this is the case.

Three things right off the top of my head....How many women live in poverty in comparison to men. How many jobs pay men more for the same job? How many corporations are still able to keep women out of top executive positions?

 

[sailfish]

Two things right off the top of my head....How many women live in poverty in comparison to men. How many jobs pay men more for the same job? How many corporations are still able to keep women out of top executive positions?

The gender wage gap is a myth that has been debunked numerously. Once you take into account things like differences in career choices and the fact that women are more likely to drop out of the workforce (at least temporarily) to raise families than men, the alleged gap virtually disappears.