Sacking for long hair ruled unfair
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A COMPUTER engineer sacked for refusing to get his shoulder-length hair cut won his claim for unfair dismissal yesterday.
An industrial tribunal awarded Kevin Lloyd, 36, of Waterman Way, Wapping, east London, pounds 4,351 for loss of earnings but it rejected his allegation of sexual discrimination. David Milton, the tribunal chairman, said that the approach taken by Mr Lloyd was too simplistic. 'It does not seem appropriate to carry out an inch by inch comparison of the length of men's hair and women's hair.'
Mr Lloyd, whose annual salary package totalled pounds 32,000, was dismissed from On Line Software, of Hanover Square, central London, in September 1991, when it was taken over by an American company, Computer Associates.
Mr Milton said that Computer Associates was entitled to change the regulations of dress and appearance when it took over. 'The problem we find with the handling was the dramatic speed with which the applicant was required to change and fit in with the new management's approach.'
He added that since Computer Associates had moved the goal posts, it was up to the company to work out some sort of compromise - and the dismissal was therefore 'unsatisfactory and unreasonable'.
The award was reduced by 50 per cent because there was a 50 per cent chance that Mr Lloyd would have been dismissed anyway, had the appropriate appeals proceedings been followed.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments