The Dorchester’s leaked list of grooming rules for female staff could open up the luxury hotel to lawsuits filed by current and former employees, critics have said.

A set of grooming demands was this week reported to have been emailed by hotel managers to employees after the five-star establishment received complaints about the general hygiene of its staff.

According to the leak, women were asked not to turn up for work with oily skin, bad breath or garish makeup. They were also encouraged to shave their legs, ensure their fingernails were manicured and avoid body odour.

Kiran Daurka, an employment lawyer at Leigh Day, said dress codes were lawful when they related directly to the requirements of a job, but could be challenged when they encouraged the objectification of staff.

“I would have concerns where a policy seemingly objectifies women by asking them to look a certain way which has no bearing on their ability to do a job,” she told the Guardian. “For example, hair removal is clearly about objectification and sexualisation, as there is some ideal of what a woman should look like.

“This may also unlawfully offend the religious or other beliefs of women whose belief system does not allow the removal of hair.

“A dress code that treats women less favourably than men is discriminatory. But even where a policy is applied to all, it may still particularly disadvantage women, and that disadvantage would need to be objectively justified.”

Do Google's 'unprofessional hair' results show it is racist? Read more

An unnamed employee told the Daily Mail: “It’s disgusting. This list is like something out of the dark ages and downright offensive. It’s not as though you choose to have oily skin, and a lot of women, especially teenagers, cannot help it – no facial wash or moisturiser in the world can control that.

“The women are all pretty livid but worry that if they complain – or rebel and turn up to work with chipped, dirty nails and hairy legs, for example – they’ll be sacked on the spot.”

Philip Landau, an employment lawyer from Landau Law, said there were many reasons why an employer may want to have a dress code or appearance policy, such as to communicate a professional and corporate image. However, “an employer’s policy must not be discriminatory in respect of the protected characteristics in the 2010 Equality Act for age, disability, gender reassignment, religion or belief, sex, or sexual orientation”, he said.

“Accordingly, any dress code or appearance policy should apply to both men and women equally. The codes do not have to be identical, as there will clearly be different requirements for male staff, but it does have to amount to similar standards. It is not clear what the equivalent grooming policy is for male staff at the Dorchester.

“A grooming policy should also be reasonable and proportionate in nature, with particular reference to the work that is being carried out. If it isn’t, and you are dismissed for failing to comply with the code, you may have a claim for direct discrimination on the grounds of sex if there has been a detriment for one gender over the other. You may also have a claim for unfair dismissal.”

Landau said employers needed to “tread carefully” in case they were seen to indirectly discriminate against an employee. The requirement not to display any excess body hair, including on the face, could discriminate against those with conditions such as polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), of which one of the main symptoms is excess androgen – high levels of “male hormones” in the body.

“This may cause physical signs, such as excess facial or body hair, and therefore a blanket policy of no facial hair could amount to indirect discrimination on the grounds of disability and sex,” he said.



Ditch high heels to promote equality at work, Theresa May told Read more

Ewa Jasiewicz, a union organiser for hotel workers in London, said she believed the stipulations left workers open to discrimination, especially if they were transgender or gender fluid. “Gender is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act and this includes gender presentation and reassignment,” Jasiewicz said.

“Women workers at the Dorchester do not enjoy transparency on where their service charge goes and do not have fair tips or [a] living wage, but are expected to spend money on manicures? This beggars belief. This in my opinion is a form of paternalistic, sexist, gendered taxation on an already exploited and underpaid female workforce.”

The Unite regional officer Dave Turnbull said: “People of different ethnic backgrounds may not be able to comply with the requirements due to their skin or hair type.

“It is possible that there is an underlying race issue here, as we are often told by members that hotels do try to avoid having black people in front-of-house position and it could easily be interpreted that the Dorchester are trying to get female staff to conform to a certain type.

“Also there are religions where the removal of facial hair may not be acceptable. There may be disability issues linked to this as well, for example skin conditions or allergies to certain types of makeup.”



To apply these standards only to female staff would be clearly sexist, he said. “It treats women workers as if they are part of the product that is being sold by the hotel and can place staff at risk of sexual harassment and comments from customers who might view them as a commodity.”

Workers in the Dorchester and other hotels were on low basic pay and often reliant on variable elements, such as tips or service charges, to top up their earnings, Turnbull said. “The cost of makeup, beauty treatments and compliance with dress code requirements can be extremely expensive and is never factored in by an additional allowance of any sort. Again, this could easily place employers at risk of claims of sex discrimination, as male employees are not expected to shoulder the same expenses.”

An employee at another London hotel, who asked to remain anonymous, said she was subjected to similar rules. She told the Guardian her main issue was that female employees had to wear tight dresses, which was “unfair and impractical” for her waitressing job. It also opened her up to unwanted comments from colleagues and guests. “If I’m cleaning a table, male workers will say things like: ‘Oh, stay right there,’” she said.



While the rules do not stipulate that the waitress must remove any facial hair, the 24-year-old, employed by a boutique hotel frequented by wealthy clients, said she had to wear skin-coloured tights rather than black ones, which meant having to shave her legs regularly, and that there was an expectation to look attractive. “We’re told that we have to dress as if we’re on our first date,” she said.



Sam Smethers, the chief executive of the Fawcett Society, said it was completely unacceptable for any woman to be told what she should wear and how she should look. “Employers should concentrate on what enables people to do a good job and what drives productivity. This is 2016, not 1970; we need to see an end to this kind of objectification of women,” she said.

The Dorchester said the rules were not emailed to all staff, but were provided to job applicants. The hotel’s general manager, Roland Fasel, said: “The Dorchester has a proud community of employees who uphold world-leading hospitality standards, including grooming, in line with many other brands.

“All new applicants, both men and women, are sent a copy of our grooming standards in advance of interview.”