Lawyers warn Australian dress codes can tip into discrimination if enforcement isn't tied to a genuine business need
A Le Monde investigation published in 2026 accused the Paris headquarters of LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton – parent company of Louis Vuitton, Dior and Tiffany – of only hiring staff who are young, slim and conventionally attractive.
LVMH chair and chief executive Bernard Arnault denied the claims in a lengthy public response, but the story has reignited a question Australian HR leaders can't ignore: where does a lawful dress or presentation standard end, and appearance-based discrimination begin?
It's a live issue locally, not just a European one. As covered in our recent look at Tokyo's leg hair harassment debate and what it means for dress codes, inconsistent enforcement of appearance standards is one of the fastest routes to a discrimination or unfair dismissal claim – and Australian case law backs that up.
What the law actually allows
Joel Hayden, practice group leader at LegalVision, says the starting point is straightforward. "Australian employers can set appearance rules where they are lawful, reasonable and connected to the work being performed," he says. The risk, he explains, arises when "the policy controls appearance for image alone, rather than safety, hygiene, role requirements or a clear business need."
A hospitality venue restricting loose jewellery for safety reasons is on solid ground. A blanket ban on visible tattoos "because management dislikes them" is a different story. "The line is crossed when a policy targets, excludes or disadvantages someone because of a protected attribute, rather than because of a genuine workplace requirement," Hayden said – citing clean-shaven rules or makeup requirements that can disproportionately affect people of certain religions and genders.
Melini Pillay, principal at McCabes, frames the legal boundary the same way. "Broadly speaking, it's the line between acceptable, reasonable and lawful directions crossing into discrimination, where we move beyond a legitimate business reason and treat someone differently or less favourably because of a protected attribute, like age, disability, race or sex," she said.
Where the case law has landed
Pillay pointed to a string of Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions that show how fact-specific this area is. In Australian Telecommunications Commission v Hart (1982) 43 ALR 165, the Full Federal Court found an employer could lawfully direct a worker not to wear a caftan to work because of the impact on the organisation's image, given the role involved customer contact.
In the XPT case – Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Enginemen v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1984) 295 CAR 188 – the Full Bench affirmed that tribunals shouldn't interfere with managerial prerogative unless a direction is unjust or unreasonable.
Grooming standards tied to safety have also been upheld. In Tasmanian Water and Sewerage Corporation v CEPU [2004] FWC 786, a requirement that an employee be clean-shaven was found reasonable because it was needed for a respiratory mask to fit properly.
Food-handling and safety concerns similarly supported the outcome in Woolworths Limited v Cameron Brown [PR 963023] (26 September 2005), where a butcher's refusal to remove an eyebrow piercing was found unreasonable – though in a related Woolworths matter, a policy limiting piercings that caught out a worker with three instead of two was found harsh and unnecessary.
More recently, a Fair Work Commission decision handed down on 1 August 2025 dismissed an unfair dismissal claim by Amy Tonkin, a product specialist at Mike Carney Toyota in Townsville, over a dispute about her uniform skirt. Deputy President Nicholas Lake found Tonkin hadn't been forced to resign, but he was scathing of how the dealership handled it, criticising a widely circulated HR memo that referenced her "body proportions."
The 2013 case of Taleski v Virgin Australia International Airlines Pty Ltd t/a Virgin Australia [2013] FWC 93 is a further reminder: the FWC found Virgin was entitled to enforce its "Look Book" grooming policy, but doing so against an employee who had grown his hair long for religious reasons and later produced medical evidence of body dysmorphic disorder was harsh, unjust and unreasonable in the circumstances.
What should HR do differently?
Pillay noted that compliance starts before a policy is rolled out. "Employers should make sure a policy requiring appearance-based adjustments, for safety reasons, follows the legislation requirements, particularly consultation before they are introduced," she said.
"There should be clear safety risks prevented by the requirement." Where the policy is a broader managerial prerogative, it "must remain something that doesn't create an unlawful, unjust or unreasonable expectation on workers," with exemptions and accommodations assessed on a request basis rather than ruled out across the board.
Hayden's advice for avoiding indirect discrimination is similarly practical: "employers should not assume the policy is safe simply because the same wording applies to all staff," since a rule can disadvantage a particular group in practice even when it applies to everyone on paper.
He also stressed that managers need training on how to raise appearance issues respectfully, "focusing on the policy, not the employee's body" – a lesson the Commission drew directly from the Carney Townsville memo.
Both lawyers agree the stakes go beyond the individual claim. Pillay noted the consequences of getting it wrong are "legal, financial and go beyond the individual to brand and reputational damage," with workplace culture and morale costs often proving more damaging than the claim itself.
For HR teams reviewing their own standards in light of the LVMH allegations, Hayden's suggestion is to start simple: "Businesses should start by listing the genuine reason for each rule. A simple, specific policy is safer than a long list of subjective grooming standards."
For more on how HR should be approaching dress code and grooming policy design, see our explainer on enforcing a dress code and where the legal line sits, and read the original coverage of the LVMH hiring allegations and what they mean for Australian employers.
