Is telling male employee not to wear make up legal?

[Prof Prolapse]

Mostly just curious (not in that way) as I found myself wearing nail varnish at a company meeting yesterday and got thinking. I am not aware of having received any guidelines regarding attire. There is most certainly nothing in my contract even alluding to a policy, and where verbal guidance has been provided there has never been any split along gender lines.

So, that being the case, a bloke could wear make up to work, and if the employer objected, but allowed same for female collagues, that would be discrimination.

I know some forms of discrimination are legal, but does it currently stand that employers can insist male workers do not wear make up?

Asking for a friend.

[Ted2]

Prof Prolapse said:

Mostly just curious (not in that way) as I found myself wearing nail varnish at a company meeting yesterday..

[...]

Asking for a friend.

[welshjon81]

Silly question but why were you wearing nail varnish?

[Prof Prolapse]

Fancy dress from night before and I neglected to bring any nail varnish remover in luggage. I'm not concerned for my job or anything.

Just genuine curiosity, I know you can discriminate legally, but I just thought nowadays discriminating against blokes wearing make up, regardless of LGBT status, would not be allowed.

[schmunk]

Breadvan72's your man here - this is right up his street.

Edit: the employment law aspects, that is, not the wearing of make-up at work (AFAIK).

Edited by schmunk on Wednesday 1st November 16:47

[The Surveyor]

Most employers would just find another reason to get rid of you if you were presenting in a way they didn't like.

[4x4Tyke]

I think it would depend on the industry and employer, I know companies in the IT sector that wouldn't bat an eyelid.

[rog007]

Unlikely to ever be in a personal contract, but there may be a company dress policy.

This should in the main cover decency and safety issues rather than fashion or social norms.

Where it may describe for example that nail varnish should be of a sober colour, this should apply regardless of gender. Essentially, any good policy would not link this to gender.

You’re good to go!

[TooMany2cvs]

The Surveyor said:

Most employers would just find another reason to get rid of you if you were presenting in a way they didn't like.

Sounds like a slippery slope to constructive dismissal.

[anonymous-user]

Prof Prolapse said:

Mostly just curious (not in that way) as I found myself wearing nail varnish at a company meeting yesterday and got thinking. I am not aware of having received any guidelines regarding attire. There is most certainly nothing in my contract even alluding to a policy, and where verbal guidance has been provided there has never been any split along gender lines.

So, that being the case, a bloke could wear make up to work, and if the employer objected, but allowed same for female collagues, that would be discrimination.

I know some forms of discrimination are legal, but does it currently stand that employers can insist male workers do not wear make up?

Asking for a friend.

Your a rozzer arent you mate

[Prof Prolapse]

No, I work in pharmaceuticals, but I know what you are referring to and supported the police with that one.

[The Surveyor]

TooMany2cvs said:

The Surveyor said:

Most employers would just find another reason to get rid of you if you were presenting in a way they didn't like.

Sounds like a slippery slope to constructive dismissal.

It is, but it happens all too often which is why they have laws in place to try and stop it. They're effective sometimes but employers can be equally effective at getting rid of people they don't like, or who don't fit-in, or who are disruptive.

[Sy1441]

I work for a high street electrical and homewares retailer, a young male sales assistant in one of my stores often comes in with a full face of makeup. It’s quite a talking point, mostly because it tends to be perfectly applied as he’s nailed all the latest techniques!

[anonymous-user]

Dress codes and grooming codes ought to be gender, race and religion neutral, absent some good reason related to the job that impacts on what people should wear. An employer who had a rule that only women can wear make up would be liable for direct sex discrimination. By contrast a rule that all employees must wear lipstick would be indirectly discriminatory against men, because present cultural practice is such that more men than women would find it hard to comply with that rule. A rule that no employee must have hair longer than a buzz cut would for similar reasons be indirectly discriminatory against women. More realistically, a rule about hair length or facial hair would have to be one capable of justification for reasons unconnected with sex.

[4x4Tyke]

Makup was common amongst Glamrock and New-Wave fans.

Many of these will be reaching middle age and managerial positions.