1. Avoid discriminatory language to reduce the risk of a discrimination claim. The dress code must apply equal standards to men and women. This does not mean that men and women are treated in an identical manner, but the code must apply standards in an even-handed manner, with a common idea of conformity and formality.

In Bree v Lupeno Pty Ltd (2003) NSWADT, the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal held that the owner of a petrol station unlawfully discriminated against a male employee dismissed for refusing to remove an earring. The Tribunal found that there was no blanket prohibition against the wearing of earrings (women were allowed to wear them), and found unlawful discrimination by the owner. The former employee was awarded damages.

Some requirements might appear on their face to be sufficient, but may in fact be discriminatory - for example, requiring high heels as part of a uniform may discriminate against elderly or disabled employees. Cultural-specific dress, may be considered if appropriate.

2. The dress code should be related to the business of the company to reduce the risk of a claim for unfair dismissal. In Fairburn v Star City Pty Ltd (AIRC) PR931032, 6 May 2003, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission upheld the dismissal of an employee by Star City for failure to comply with established dress and grooming codes. The Commission found that it was reasonable for Star City to have an appearance policy and to maintain that image in front of its customers. The facts of that case were as follows:

(a) The employee had signed a document confirming that she agreed to comply with Star City's requirements, and understood that failure to comply could lead to her dismissal;

(b) Star City's policies specified that certain types of visible body piercing, including tongue piercing, were unacceptable. The employee, after working at Star City for almost a year, had her tongue pierced and began wearing a tongue stud at work. She was allowed to wear the stud for a 3-month grace period to avoid possible risks of infections. After the grace period passed, the employee refused to remove the stud at work. She was suspended without pay.

(c) The employee informed Star City that she would not return to work unless she was allowed to wear the tongue stud. Star City dismissed her. The employee claimed the termination was "harsh, unjust or unreasonable". The Commission did not agree with the employee and dismissed her application.

3. Consider occupational health and safety requirements when reviewing dress code requirements to reduce the risk of breach of Occupational Health and Safety requirements.

• Make sure the policy is carefully worded, reasonable and necessary for the conduct of business;
• Applied fairly with some flexibility;
• Advise employees of the code in writing;
• Further advise employees of the consequences of non-compliance with the code;
• Have in place procedures to be followed where there is non-compliance, including an opportunity for the employee to state his or her position;
• Take into account any Occupational Health and Safety issues.