Search
Close this search box.

It’s illegal to require staff to “look attractive”

A London bar has drawn criticism after posting a job advert for bar staff. The ad, by House of Wax, stated that “physical attractiveness is unfortunately necessary for this role” and, as well as a having a fun, lively attitude, it also specified that female applicants “must be comfortable wearing black heels during their shift”. Comment from Jacob Demeza-Wilkinson is an employment law consultant for the ELAS Group.
contractor

A London bar has drawn criticism after posting a job advert for bar staff. The ad, by House of Wax, stated that “physical attractiveness is unfortunately necessary for this role” and, as well as a having a fun, lively attitude, it also specified that female applicants “must be comfortable wearing black heels during their shift”. Comment from Jacob Demeza-Wilkinson is an employment law consultant for the ELAS Group.

Predictably, the backlash has been swift with Nicola Thorp, whose petition regarding the requirement to wear high heels was debated in Parliament, leading the way. Jacob Demeza-Wilkinson is an employment law consultant for the ELAS Group. He says: “This is actually a strange one. It is not strictly unlawful to put a requirement such as this in a job advert however there are considerations that we would advise making before a company took the risk – and it is a risk – of posting an advert such as this.

“Firstly, you would need to be aware that if someone with a physical disability applied for the role, you could not automatically reject their application by saying that the disability caused that individual to not be attractive enough. They would have to be considered for the role on merit alone.

“Secondly, you would need to ensure that the policy is applied equally to both male and female applicants. Solely asking for attractive female staff would be discriminatory as women would be put at a detriment. Furthermore attractiveness is highly subjective, and having this as a job requirement makes it very difficult to justify your recruitment decisions, which means a company will find it very difficult to justify rejecting someone with a protected characteristic thereby leaving them open to a discrimination claim. Given the Supreme Court’s recent decision to abolish tribunal fees a lot of people will now not even think twice before filing a claim.

“Finally, as we have seen from the backlash in this case, the damage done to your reputation can be significant. Whilst you may have technically done nothing wrong, reputation is something that every business will rank very highly on the list of important factors and it can be very hard to recover once the damage has been done.

“With all of that in mind, whilst not strictly incorrect, it would be highly advisable to avoid adverts containing criteria of this type in order to ensure that you protect your business”.

Read more

Latest News

Read More

How to avoid employee disengagement in the age of AI

25 April 2024

Newsletter

Receive the latest HR news and strategic content

Please note, as per the GDPR Legislation, we need to ensure you are ‘Opted In’ to receive updates from ‘theHRDIRECTOR’. We will NEVER sell, rent, share or give away your data to third parties. We only use it to send information about our products and updates within the HR space To see our Privacy Policy – click here

Latest HR Jobs

University of Warwick 8211 Human ResourcesSalary £33 966 to £44 263 per annum

University of CambridgeSalary £37 099

University of Cambridge 8211 Institute of Continuing Education Salary £32 332 to £38 205 pa

Managing the compliance team and overseeing the function making sure all the necessary job sites are live any renewals such as DBS etc are kept

Read the latest digital issue of theHRDIRECTOR for FREE

Read the latest digital issue of theHRDIRECTOR for FREE