An Ex-Jet2 worker who quit her job over a disagreement over her ‘extreme’ haircut has lost a £22k compensation bid.
Marion McKay, 52, quit the role last year after claiming airline bosses threatened to ban her from working on flights.
She took the budget airline to an employment tribunal claiming emotional distress and loss of earnings, but lost the claim after the panel ruled she was not discriminated against.
The former cabin crew member, who worked with Jet2 for 14-months, says she passed two annual ‘Red Hot’ weeks where cabin crew are judged on makeup, hair and clothes, with no issue.
But just days after passing the second assessment in July 2023, Marion claimed a member of cabin crew management informed her that her current hairstyle ‘did not meet company standards’.
She was then allegedly told that she would be refused to fly if she did not change her hair.
Stuart Mckenzie, deputy cabin crew manager, told the tribunal: ‘We planned to approach her during Red Hot Week, but it was too busy. We intended to still speak to her, but were looking for an appropriate time to do it.
‘The claimant was not prevented from flying. Her hair doesn’t fit with the guidelines because it is an extreme style.
‘We spoke about potentially growing her hair out at the sides.’
On July 14, 2023, Marion was signed off sick with work-related stress caused by her working situation.
A week later, Marion formally resigned via email, citing the airlines’ conduct, with her employment ending on August 13 2023.
Mr McKenzie added: ‘She resigned. There was no bad blood between managers and she enjoyed her time with the company.
‘If the claimant was a man, the action I would have taken towards her hair would have been the same.’
Kelly Bolton, cabin services regional manager, added that Marion’s hair was ‘more extreme’ than the styles of her male colleagues.
She said: ‘She had changed her hair since she started. The claimant’s hairstyle was more extreme and shaven.
‘If she was a man we would approach her to let her know it is not in line with company guidance. We would have done that for anyone.’
But Marion’s lawyer, Amanda Buchanan, argued that her client was treated ‘more stringently’ because she is female.
She said: ‘Being asked to change hairstyle and having the policy enforced should be applied evenly between men and women. It should not be applied more stringently to females and that is what I believe has happened here.
‘The comparisons from her colleague’s hair to Marion’s were extremely similar, in height, in the ways they were short and shaven. Just looking at the pictures they look the same.
‘Her manager had taken a view that her hair was extreme because she was female, not because of the policy.
‘Why were no male members of staff spoken to regarding how short their hair was? The claimant felt distressed and upset about having to change her appearance and took it very much to heart.’
In a written ruling, employment judge Michelle Sutherland said: ‘The claimant resigned because she was asked to change her hair but that request was not discriminatory.
‘There was accordingly no discriminatory conduct which amounted to a breach of the implied duty of trust and confidence.
‘The respondent did not discriminate against the claimant by constructively dismissing her.
‘In conclusion, the complaints of discrimination do not succeed and are accordingly dismissed.’
In response to the news, Ms McKay, from Edinburgh, said: ‘I think I’ll just move on. Very disappointing given I was employed looking the same but hey ho.’
.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.