You might begin your answer by stating generally that this question is about discrimination in employment. The relevant legislation is the Equality Act 2010 which, amongst other measures, replaced the Sex Discrimination Act, the Race Relations Act, and the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.

First, consider the case of Mrs Nice. On the face of it there does seem to be an example of direct race discrimination by Mr Dodgy, so you should discuss direct discrimination and that it requires less favourable treatment of an individual on the grounds of their race, colour, etc (James v Eastleigh BC [1990]). The question is how does this help Mrs Nice who is white and is not herself apparently being discriminated against? You should point out that the Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful for a person to instruct another to commit an unlawful act. You will also need to refer to the case of Weathersfield v Sargent [1999], whose facts are very similar to this situation, concluding that Mrs Nice would be able to claim constructive dismissal and have a claim under the Equality Act 2010.

Mona’s case will lead you to consider indirect discrimination under the Act. Is this a rule that amounts to a provision, criterion, or practice that will be of detriment to a larger number of women than men (Whiffen v Milham Ford Girls School [2001])? Is it also of detriment to Mona herself? This seems likely and you will want to raise the issue of whether there is any objective justification for the rule, whether there is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. You could also raise the situation with regard to the burden of proof. Mr Dodgy will have to show that the rule was for another reason than one that amounted to discrimination against women.

Mr Singh might also have a claim for discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 as Sikhs have been recognised as an ethnic group (Mandla v Dowell Lee [1983]), but it is also possible that he might have a claim under the religion or belief provisions of the Act— whether an unjustifiable rule concerning hair length is likely to discriminate against people of a particular religion. The employer would have to show that the rule was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.