G v St Gregory's Catholic Science College (Rev 1)

G v St Gregory's Catholic Science College (Rev 1)

The school's policy prohibiting cornrows for boys, as now applied, constitutes indirect race discrimination against boys of African-Caribbean ethnicity who, for genuine cultural and family reasons, do not cut their hair and wear cornrows. The discrimination is not justified as a proportionate means of achieving the school's legitimate aims, as exceptions could be made for genuine cases without undermining the policy. There is no unlawful sex discrimination as the overall policy does not treat boys less favourably than girls.

Parties
Claimant: G (by his litigation friend); Defendants: The Head Teacher & Governors of St Gregory’s Catholic Science College
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part
Legal Topics
School Uniform Policy, Indirect Race Discrimination, Indirect Sex Discrimination, Equality Act 2010, Race Relations Act 1976, Sex Discrimination Act 1975
Education Law Equality and Discrimination Law Administrative Law School Uniform Policy Indirect Race Discrimination Indirect Sex Discrimination Equality Act 2010 Race Relations Act 1976 +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G (by his litigation friend)

Claimant

The Head Teacher & Governors of St Gregory’s Catholic Science College

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the school's prohibition on cornrows for boys is unlawful indirect race discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 and Race Relations Act 1976
  2. 2 Whether the policy amounts to unlawful sex discrimination
  3. 3 Whether the policy is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim

Ratio Decidendi

The school's policy prohibiting cornrows for boys, as now applied, constitutes indirect race discrimination against boys of African-Caribbean ethnicity who, for genuine cultural and family reasons, do not cut their hair and wear cornrows. The discrimination is not justified as a proportionate means of achieving the school's legitimate aims, as exceptions could be made for genuine cases without undermining the policy. There is no unlawful sex discrimination as the overall policy does not treat boys less favourably than girls.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part

Orders

  • Declaration that the policy as now applied can result in indirect race discrimination against boys of African-Caribbean ethnicity who for genuine cultural and family reasons wear cornrows.
  • No finding of unlawful sex discrimination.