The High Court has handed down its decision in SG v St Gregory’s Catholic Science College, where it found that a uniform policy of prohibiting a cornrows hairstyle for all pupils, without exception, can result in indirect race discrimination, but not sex discrimination.
The Court found that there was evidence that there are those of African-Caribbean ethnicity who do, for reasons based on their culture and ethnicity, regard the cutting of their hair to be wrong, so that they need their hair to be kept in cornrows. As such, there was a group who could be at particular disadvantage by a blanket policy that refused to allow cornrows. The School’s arguments that a blanket policy could be justified were rejected.
On sex discrimination, Collins J referred to the Court of Appeal’s decision in Smith v Safeway and the guidance that rules concerning appearances that enforce a common principle of smartness or conventionality will not be discriminatory; a policy looked at as a whole that allowed cornrows for girls, but not boys, did not amount to unlawful sex discrimination.
The facts of this case had arisen in September 2009, and the question of whether there had been an unlawful refusal to accept the claimant in cornrows will depend on the determination of what the School knew or ought to have known at the time.
Paul Burton, Employment Solicitor at Frettens, says “This case bucks the trend of recent cases, in which employers have been able to successfully argue dress codes are not discriminatory, particularly based on religious beliefs. Employers who want to have uniform dress codes do need to ensure that there is nothing in their policies that can be viewed as being discriminatory or, at least, if there is then the policy can be objectively justified.”
Comments