Tribunal decision could let bankers dress informally

An employment tribunal upheld a claim by Matthew Thompson, a civil servant working for the Department for Work and Pensions, that having to wearing a collar and tie amounted to indirect discrimination because women were not subject to similar restrictions.

Elizabeth Slattery, a partner at the law firm Lovells, said Thompson's case had implications for investment banks. Male employees are often expected to wear a shirt and tie, but requirements for women's dress were typically more vague.

Slattery said to avoid clams of discrimination, banks should come up with an equally stringent dress code for women. However, it is not clear precisely what this should comprise. 'It is difficult to see what the female equivalent to a shirt and tie might be," Slattery said.

It is unclear how far Thompson's victory might affect other cases. His claim was based partly on the fact that he did not meet clients in his job.

To be considered indirect discrimination, a dress policy must fulfill three criteria: it must treat one group more favourably than another; the favourable treatment must be on the grounds of gender; and the unfavourably treated group must suffer a 'detriment' as a result of the dress policy.

The case could be bad news for banks, where formal dress is undergoing something of a renaissance. Last month, David Hitchcock, head of corporate access at JP Morgan, instructed equity sales staff to 'smarten up', adding that dress down had in some cases led to 'dress collapse'.

Last year, Lehman Brothers and Deutsche Bank's global markets divisions were among those re-imposing smart dress policies.

Times have changed since 2000, when Deutsche Bank ran recruitment adverts targeting IT staff with the claim 'pin stripes were yesterday'. Pin stripes are now very much today....but tomorrow they could be worn with T-shirts.

The government is appealing against the tribunal's decision.