Discrimination: is beauty in the eye of the beholder?

It is relatively common for companies to impose strict codes for the appearance of front-line staff in an attempt to reinforce their ‘brand’, but news reports of two recent discrimination cases highlight the potential pitfalls of adopting such a policy.   

In the first case, Abercrombie & Fitch is being sued for disability discrimination by one of its British shop workers, Riam Dean, who claims she was forced to hide in a back room because she has a prosthetic arm.  The chain requires its shop assistants to wear each season's ‘key look’.  Initially she was permitted to wear a cardigan to hide the prosthesis but Miss Dean claims she was repeatedly told off for wearing the cardigan and was eventually consigned to the stockroom by a manager and accused  of “breaking the look policy”.   She alleges that head office advised her to remain in the stockroom until the long-sleeved winter uniform came in.  According to reports, Abercrombie & Fitch’s staff rule book states that shop assistants (called ‘models’ by the chain) must look great in a young, preppy, ‘classic American’ way.  If Ms Dean’s allegations are correct, it is difficult to see why the chain did not consider the cardigan to be a ‘reasonable adjustment’ to make for their disabled employee?

Meanwhile, L’Oréal has been found guilty of racial discrimination for considering black, Arab and Asian women unworthy of selling its shampoo.  France’s highest Court found that the group had discriminated on racial grounds when it sought an all-white team of sales staff to promote Fructis Style, a haircare product made by Garnier, L’Oréal’s beauty division.  The court ruled that Adecco, the temporary recruitment agency who hired the hostesses, was also guilty of racial discrimination when it sent a fax saying that Garnier’s hostesses should be aged 18 to 22, wear size 38 to 42 clothes (British sizes 8 to 12) and be “BBR” (an expression widely recognised in the French recruitment world as a code for white French people born to white French parents).  Had the case occurred in the UK, L’Oreal’s age requirement and ethnicity requirement would both very likely have fallen foul of age and race discrimination laws, but the requirement that staff be a certain dress size would not (assuming a similar restriction applied to men).   

How far do you think a company should be permitted to go to protect its brand image?  Does your company (perhaps unwittingly) have appearance rules which may breach anti-discrimination laws?