Jet2 Flight Attendant Loses £22k Tribunal Claim Over “Extreme Haircut” Dispute

In Marion McKay v Jet2.com Limited, a flight attendant unsuccessfully claimed £22,000 following a dispute over her hairstyle. The employment tribunal dismissed her constructive dismissal and sex discrimination claims, ruling the airline’s uniform policy applied to men and women equally. Read on as we explore what happened and led to the employment tribunal’s decision.

If you have faced discrimination or some form of unfair dismissal at work, please don’t hesitate to contact us. Redmans Solicitors are employment law professionals who can assess your circumstances before advising how you could proceed.

All you need to do to get started with us today is:

The Facts in Marion McKay v Jet2.com Limited

Background of the Flight Attendant

Marion McKay (“The Claimant”) began working for Jet2.com Limited (“The Respondent”) on 20 June 2022. She was part of the cabin crew and worked out of Edinburgh Airport.

The Jet2 flight attendant had a rather distinct haircut. The sides of her head were shaved to 0.5mm in length and dyed a “salt and pepper” colour. Conversely, she grew the top of her hair out, sweeping it back to form an undercut, and dyed it bleached “white” blonde.

The claimant was always smartly dressed and well-groomed, leading to her passing two uniform policy assessments. Although she kept her hairstyle fairly consistent throughout her employment, the undercut became more visible over time. This posed an issue, as the respondent’s uniform policy prohibits “extreme hairstyles”, like undercuts and Mohicans, which apply to all employees, regardless of sex.

Respondent Raises Issue with “Extreme Haircut”

Since the claimant had an undercut, she was contacted on 10 July 2023. This came just days after she’d passed the respondent’s annual “Red Hot Days”, where employee compliance with uniform policy was checked. Her manager advised her to allow her hair to grow out to comply with the policy.

Unfortunately, the flight attendant wasn’t happy about this. She explained that her haircut was part of her identity, meaning she wouldn’t feel comfortable changing it. As such, on 11 July, she inquired about the consequences of not making the advised changes and requested a meeting. That same day, her manager responded, explaining that only minor changes were required to become compliant, but was happy to arrange a meeting.

Flight Attendant Resigns

The claimant subsequently attempted to adjust her haircut but found this to be unsuccessful. She advised that she would fly with her regular haircut over the coming days and, on 13 July, discussed her intention to resign.

The respondent urged the Jet2 flight attendant to carefully consider her position and not make any rash decisions. From 14-16 July, the claimant was on sick leave with work-related stress caused by the dispute. Shortly after her return, on 22 July, she ultimately decided to hand in her resignation.

Until her notice period ended on 13 August, the claimant continued to fly and maintained a positive relationship with her colleagues. When she attended her exit interview on 25 August, she explained that her decision to resign arose from the haircut dispute and wished to raise a formal grievance. 

Three days later, she did so on the grounds of sex discrimination, believing she had no choice but to resign as if she didn’t change her haircut, she would be refused to fly. She claimed she’d only been subject to this treatment because she was female, believing men would get away with it. To strengthen her allegations, she provided examples of male colleagues she believed had similar hairstyles.

Legal Proceedings Commenced

A report was provided on 10 October following a grievance investigation. The respondent stated that the dispute arose because the claimant’s hairstyle had become more extreme. 

They explained that although the issue hadn’t been raised in the “Red Hot Day” assessment, it should’ve been, and added that other cabin crew members had been held accountable. As a result, the respondent didn’t uphold her grievance but offered her the chance to reconsider her resignation.

In the end, the Jet2 flight attendant commenced employment tribunal proceedings on 28 November after completing ACAS early conciliation on 25 October. She brought claims of constructive dismissal and sex discrimination.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Once proceedings concluded, the employment tribunal was tasked with determining whether the claimant had faced constructive dismissal and sex discrimination. If this was the case, they then had to decide if she was entitled to compensation due to loss of earnings and emotional distress.

Upon reviewing the facts, the tribunal found that the Jet2 flight attendant’s undercut breached the respondent’s uniform policy. Moreover, they established that the male comparators highlighted didn’t have an undercut, thus making their hairstyles materially different. The tribunal was of the view that regardless of an employee’s sex, the respondent would apply its policy equally. As such, they ruled that the flight attendant didn’t face sex discrimination.

As for her constructive dismissal claim, the tribunal set out that the claimant left due to being asked to change her hairstyle. Since they had already established that this wasn’t a discriminatory request, they held the respondent hadn’t breached the implied duty of trust and confidence. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed this claim, and the claimant was awarded nothing.

If, unlike the flight attendant, you believe you’ve faced discrimination or unfair dismissal, contact Redmans Solicitors now. As employment law professionals, we can provide specialist advice and help you with the legal process.

To begin: