If the face doesn’t fit

If the face doesn’t fit


A 20 year-old, first-year psychology student at Anglia Ruskin University was left humiliated after being turned down for a punting job in Cambridge for not being good-looking enough. After enquiring after a role at punting company Scudamore, Ben Cronin was told by the sales representative, “Sorry mate, you have to be good looking to do this job”.

Mr Cronin said, “All my friends were so shocked. The way he spoke to my friend and I has put us off wanting to punt on the river ever again. It has made us feel really unconfident about how we look. I have low self-esteem issues anyway so to hear that from a stranger was even worse than hearing it from a friend.”

Although Scudamore launched an investigation into the incident after receiving a complaint from Mr Cronin, it was unable to recognise the description of the staff member. General manager Rob Ingersent said: “The alleged comment is not something we endorse, as we recruit purely on the basis of work criteria and individual merit.”

Of course, on a basic level there is nothing that prevents an employer from selecting individuals based on their looks. Clearly models are a case in point where the very purpose of the role is to look good and usually (except for FHM (and below!) type publications) to make clothes and products look good for their designers/manufacturers. It would defeat the point if companies were forced to use unattractive individuals (or even just ordinary, non-gazelle like people who look like they have eaten slightly more than one or two lettuce leaves in the last week!) which unfortunately may result in brand damage as opposed to promotion!

However, that does not mean that there are no limits as to how looks can be taken into account. In fact, there is a lot of protection in discrimination legislation that prevents looks being taken into account in a reasonable number of circumstances. On the most basic level, an individual cannot be treated less favourably because of their race. On a more subtle level, an employer who will only hire attractive women (but will hire unattractive men), is likely to face indirect sex discrimination allegations. Similarly, there are likely to be arguments of age discrimination where looks are taken into account. Whilst indirect discrimination can be objectively justified, it is clear that most employers will have a hard time suggesting that having eye candy in the office is a legitimate aim!

Further, it is not possible to decide not to employ someone or treat them detrimentally because of the look of a physical disability. In 2009, a woman brought a claim against retailer Abercrombie & Fitch for disability discrimination, claiming it made her work in a stockroom because her prosthetic arm didn’t fit its public image. Riam Dean was just days into a part-time job at the US firm’s flagship London store when she was allegedly asked to leave the shop floor. She claimed she was told she broke the company’s “Look Policy”, which dictates how members of staff are meant to present themselves. Whilst the decision does not appear to have been reported, we can only assume if the facts were as she alleged, that she would have been successful in her claim.