BOSSES have been warned to be flexible in their dress codes after “troubling” accounts of women being told to dye their hair blonde or wear revealing outfits.

The experiences suffered by female staff were catalogued in a report by MPs into the case of Nicola Thorp, a receptionist sent home from an agency job for refusing to wear high heels.

Kate Brooks, senior associate solicitor in employment law at Ellis Jones in Bournemouth, said dress codes aimed at a professional appearance would be lawful. But they could amount to discrimination when dealing with sex, religion, disability or gender reassignment.

“Treating a woman less favourably than a man amounts to sex discrimination. Some case examples: a requirement for men to have hair not below shirt collar length, which did not apply to a woman, was lawful and not discriminatory. Also a dress code which required a man to wear shirt and tie and woman to dress appropriately was not unlawful,” she said.

“The case of a waitress dismissed for refusing to wear a low-cut top was found to be sex discrimination. A man was not required to wear an equivalent uniform.”

“Of course, the employer will only get in trouble with the law if the employee chooses to enforce their rights. There are lots of reasons why an employee may not actually bring a claim against an employer – for example costs, risks and stress.

“However, a prudent employer will not only consider the law but also the damage a discriminatory dress code could do to their ability to recruit staff effectively and get new clients. I do not think that we live in a world where professionals really think that these types of dress code are acceptable. I think it is like saying that it is acceptable to have a naked calendar up in the workplace – the days of such behaviour are well past us.”

Amy Cousineau Massey, head of employment law at Steele Raymond in Bournemouth, said any measure that put women at a disadvantage would be unlawful.

“The report identifies a need for those facing discriminatory dress codes to have more remedies available and to be able to enforce their rights more vigorously. The report suggests tribunals should be given wider powers including the ability to apply financial penalties to deter unlawful dress codes,” she said.

“This flies in the face of the current tribunal regime that imposes fairly hefty fees for a claimant alleging discrimination, currently £1,200. Presently, this means that bringing a discrimination claim relating to an issue of dress code could cost more money than a claimant would stand to win.”

She said dress code queries from employees should be taken seriously and reviewed carefully. “The more flexible an employer can be, the better,” she added.

Sandra Attrill, Verwood-based personal stylist with House of Colour, said: “Society has moved to a place where we value skills and attitudes over appearance in the work place – however, the visual sense is still influencing our opinions subconsciously.“In a Harvard study, women were photographed wearing varying amounts of makeup – from barefaced, natural, professional and glamorous. Viewers considered the women wearing makeup to be more competent and the photograph of a women wearing a professional makeup look to be most competent. Too little or too much gives the wrong signal. We believe that being and looking authentic is key to success in your career, expressing your true self, confidently through your best colours and style.”