What is a Section 278 Agreement?

A Section 278 Agreement is a legal agreement between a developer and a highway authority to carry out highway works.

Religion, Belief And Dress Codes – Striking The Right Legal Balance

Dress codes may appear to be a routine HR issue, but they carry significant legal and reputational risk if handled incorrectly. Employers who impose inflexible or poorly thought-out requirements can quickly find themselves facing discrimination claims, employee relations issues and wider reputational damage.

The starting point for any analysis is the Equality Act 2010. This protects employees from discrimination because of religion or belief, amongst other protected characteristics. In the context of dress codes, the key legal risk is usually indirect discrimination—where a policy applies to everyone but has a disproportionate impact on a particular group.

The crucial question is whether the policy can be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Case law provides helpful guidance on how tribunals approach this balancing exercise. In Eweida v United Kingdom, a British Airways employee was prevented from wearing a small visible cross in breach of its uniform policy. The European Court of Human Rights found in her favour, holding that the employer’s desire to project a particular corporate image was not sufficiently strong to justify restricting her right to manifest her religion. The cross was discreet and did not undermine professionalism.

By contrast, in Chaplin v Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, decided alongside Eweida, a nurse was prohibited from wearing a crucifix necklace for health and safety reasons. This time, the restriction was upheld. The risk of infection and the possibility of patients grabbing the necklace were considered legitimate concerns that outweighed the employee’s rights.

These cases illustrate a key principle: context is everything. Health and safety will often provide a strong justification; corporate image alone rarely will.

A similar approach can be seen in cases involving religious clothing. In Azmi v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council, a teaching assistant was required to remove her full face veil while working with pupils. Although this amounted to indirect discrimination, it was justified because the school needed effective communication in the classroom. Likewise, in Begum v Pedagogy Auras UK Ltd, a requirement to wear a shorter jilbab was upheld due to health and safety concerns.

However, employers must still consider less discriminatory alternatives. Where adjustments are available, a blanket ban is unlikely to be proportionate.

It is also important to remember that protection extends beyond mainstream religions. Philosophical beliefs – if genuinely held and sufficiently serious – are also covered. This creates additional risk where dress codes regulate symbols or expressions of belief, particularly if policies are applied inconsistently.

For HR professionals, the key takeaway is that flexibility and justification are critical. A lawful dress code should allow for exceptions, be grounded in genuine business needs, and demonstrate that alternatives have been considered. In this area, a rigid approach is rarely defensible – and often unnecessary.

About Jon Dunkley

Jon Dunkley is a Partner at Wollens and heads up the firm’s Regulatory Department. Based at our North Devon office, Jon is a highly experienced solicitor with a broad commercial and regulatory practice, supporting businesses, professionals and senior employees across a wide range of legal issues.