What the law actually allows<\/p>\n
Joel Hayden, practice group leader at LegalVision, says the starting point is straightforward. “Australian employers can set appearance rules where they are lawful, reasonable and connected to the work being performed,” he says. The risk, he explains, arises when “the policy controls appearance for image alone, rather than safety, hygiene, role requirements or a clear business need.”<\/p>\n
A hospitality venue restricting loose jewellery for safety reasons is on solid ground. A blanket ban on visible tattoos “because management dislikes them” is a different story. “The line is crossed when a policy targets, excludes or disadvantages someone because of a protected attribute, rather than because of a genuine workplace requirement,” Hayden said \u2013 citing clean-shaven rules or makeup requirements that can disproportionately affect people of certain religions and genders.<\/p>\n
Melini Pillay, principal at McCabes, frames the legal boundary the same way. “Broadly speaking, it’s the line between acceptable, reasonable and lawful directions crossing into discrimination, where we move beyond a legitimate business reason and treat someone differently or less favourably because of a protected attribute, like age, disability, race or sex,” she said.<\/p>\n
Where the case law has landed<\/p>\n