Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To send an employee to a client even though she refuses because of her religion?

640 replies

GelatinousDynamo · 15/03/2025 13:30

I have a new employee in my team, she is a devout Muslim. She's been with us since January and there were no issues so far, she's getting along well with everyone and her performance was fine. I sent her an email on Friday afternoon to say that our client has now (finally) prepared all necessary documents and that she should go there and go over everything with them one day next week. She wrote me back today that she can't do that because only men work in the department and she can't spend the day alone with strange men (because of her religion).

AIBU to insist that she does her job and goes there or would that be religious discrimination? She shares an office with a male colleague and has never complained about it. She's the first devout Muslim I've ever had on my team and I honestly have no experience at all with such issues. She's the only one who has the necessary experience and isn't already scheduled elsewhere.

OP posts:
ThatsNotMyTeen · 16/03/2025 09:17

@Lovelysausagedogscrumpy

this is the relevant section in the Equality Act on indirect discrimination. Perhaps you can point out where it sets out the duty to make reasonable adjustments, as I certainly can’t see it?

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/19

on the other hand, here is the section of the equality act which does refer to reasonable adjustments:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/20

which only applies to disabled persons.

words matter in law and when advising on it, this is why OP needs professional advice and not from randoms on mumsnet who make up laws

Equality Act 2010

An Act to make provision to require Ministers of the Crown and others when making strategic decisions about the exercise of their functions to have regard to the desirability of reducing socio-economic inequalities; to reform and harmonise equality law...

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/19

Chuchoter · 16/03/2025 09:15

Disgraceful. So much for integration!

She probably took the job knowing full well there would come a time she would be asked to be alone working alongside men and could kick up a stink if she was disciplined or sacked and then she would claim thousands in unfair dismissal etc.

Ddakji · 16/03/2025 09:12

All this talk of chaperones is genuinely disgusting. This is Britain the 21st century. We do not chaperone women, we do not segregate by sex in the workplace. And we should not be pandering to those who want to drag our country backwards in the name of religion. If anyone asked me to be a chaperone in this circumstance I would point blank refuse.

How anyone can call that “reasonable” I can’t think.

Ketchupbroc · 16/03/2025 09:10

sometimesmovingforwards · 16/03/2025 09:07

Yup. He should have said just ensure she doesn’t pass the probation period and get her out that way.

Show quote history

If you say so

sometimesmovingforwards · 16/03/2025 09:07

Ketchupbroc · 16/03/2025 09:04

My DH says I should just fire her, but he's obviously not a lawyer.

he's “obviously” a twat though

Yup. He should have said just ensure she doesn’t pass the probation period and get her out that way.

ThatsNotMyTeen · 16/03/2025 09:07

indieect discrimination applies to all protected characteristics and can be defended if the discrimination is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim
the duty to make reasonable adjustments applies only to disability and the aim of it is to remove or reduce the effect of the employee’s disability to enable them to do their job,

ThatsNotMyTeen · 16/03/2025 09:04

Lovelysausagedogscrumpy · 15/03/2025 19:03

Reasonable adjustment applies anywhere where the Equality Act 2010 confers protected characteristics. The reasonable adjustment in cases such as OP’s is to provide a work around to company policy or rule which disproportionately affects employees and could be considered indirect discrimination. This has been said several times now. It applies in all cases, not just disability.

Show quote history

No, you’re wrong’

The specific duty to make reasonable adjustments applies only to disability.

go and read the Equality Act

Ketchupbroc · 16/03/2025 09:04

My DH says I should just fire her, but he's obviously not a lawyer.

he's “obviously” a twat though

andHelenknowsimmiserablenow · 16/03/2025 09:04

Newtt · 16/03/2025 08:52

This is very pertinent.

OP needs to understand the longer term implications in job planning and costing.

How likely is it that OP’s employee may turn up to an on site meeting and the clients turn out to be a group of males?

How acceptable would it be to request details of attendees at on site client meetings and updates of substitutions if ‘the woman’ on a client team were not to attend for some reason?

I have no idea what is normal or acceptable practice or occurrence - but this is bigger than a one off situation and the implications need to be thought through fully.

It sounds like it is time for an HR policy to be formulated for meetings / conduct in general which clarify expectations of staff at each level. Transparency on job / hiring requirements for both potential employees and employer are needed here.

I’m sure any policy (and law) would constantly evolve, but seems essential to put a starting point in place for everyone’s sake.

Show quote history

Yes, and the company will need to learn from this for future recruitment.
At the interview it should be made clear what the expectations of these on site meetings are, and that they involve meeting people of one, or both sexes, solo, and then asking the candidate to confirm they are willing to do this.

ThatsNotMyTeen · 16/03/2025 09:00

CandidHedgehog · 16/03/2025 08:01

For the OP laughing at them and telling them their cultural norm is ‘bollocks’? I wouldn’t count on it and since the issue can easily be avoided by the OP being polite, she’d be sensible to do so.

Show quote history

She’s venting on here. I’m sure she’s professional enough not to do it to the employee’s face. I think trans and NB issues are total bollocks but I’d manage to be professional and courteous to people with these identities at work

Dideon · 16/03/2025 08:57

MakkaPakkasCave · 15/03/2025 14:30

A chaperone? Is this 1825?!

Show quote history

This !!!! Every time I read “couldn’t you just send her with a chaperone” more friggin steam comes out of the top of my head !

Agix · 16/03/2025 08:57

If she's going to do her job properly, she'll need a chaperone / assistant. Someone you hire at minimum wage to accompany her to large meetings.

Or, employ the assistant for all of you, and you'll just have someone there to go with her when needs be.

All teams in any role could do with an assistant really.

Newtt · 16/03/2025 08:52

latetothefisting · 15/03/2025 21:15

even if you found a way around it this time, what happens the next time?
Presumably you won't always know the exact sex composition of every client, so will she expect you to contact them beforehand and ask about the sex of everyone attending the meeting, every single time? Is she aware how weird and unprofessional this will make your company look?

What if she thinks she's going to meet with a woman and they back out and are replaced by a man last minute - would she have to walk out of and reschedule the meeting? Again, how will that look!

Obviously speak to HR but seems to me you have two choices. Sit her down, tell her that the job is going to involve client meetings and the chances are they will often be men, give her a chance to offer any ideas she has but at the end of the day if she can't meet with clients, she can't do a major part of her job so isn't fulfilling her job description.

Or (the safer in terms of possible discrimination claim) - say a cheerful 'Okay no worries,' for this meeting, but terminate her contract asap afterwards for something general like 'not being a good fit' or 'restructuring' or whatever. If she's in her probation period you can sack someone for pretty much any reason, as long as you've never raised the male thing as an issue she'll have no evidence to use in a potential discrimination tribunal.

This is very pertinent.

OP needs to understand the longer term implications in job planning and costing.

How likely is it that OP’s employee may turn up to an on site meeting and the clients turn out to be a group of males?

How acceptable would it be to request details of attendees at on site client meetings and updates of substitutions if ‘the woman’ on a client team were not to attend for some reason?

I have no idea what is normal or acceptable practice or occurrence - but this is bigger than a one off situation and the implications need to be thought through fully.

It sounds like it is time for an HR policy to be formulated for meetings / conduct in general which clarify expectations of staff at each level. Transparency on job / hiring requirements for both potential employees and employer are needed here.

I’m sure any policy (and law) would constantly evolve, but seems essential to put a starting point in place for everyone’s sake.

Trolleysaregoodforemployment · 16/03/2025 08:51

CandidHedgehog · 16/03/2025 08:01

For the OP laughing at them and telling them their cultural norm is ‘bollocks’? I wouldn’t count on it and since the issue can easily be avoided by the OP being polite, she’d be sensible to do so.

Show quote history

It is bollocks though, isn't it? Just because millions follow the norms of a particular religion don't means that large elements of it aren't oppressive and/or bollocks.

Most religions are based on the belief of male superiority, whilst using honour and tradition as interchangeable straitjackets for women. The way some peopme would choose to follow Islam's traditonal view on men and women.working together is outdated, backwards, prejudiced and sexist (basically bollocks (any derisive word will do)) Tolerating or accomodating those views is not consistent with a civilised society.

StMarie4me · 16/03/2025 08:28

mudandgrass · 15/03/2025 13:51

I have quite strong views on this. She is employed to do a job. If her beliefs prevent her from doing this job then the onus is on her to make the sacrifice for her religion by not taking a job that conflicts with her beliefs.

I am a vegetarian but I would never take a job in a restaurant then refuse to serve people meat. I make the sacrifices for my beliefs.

Having said that, you would need to speak to an employment lawyer for the legal position on this. Because that is really what is relevant here

It’s not about anyone’s views though. It’s about what the law considers reasonable. Which is open to a lot of misuse. Legal advice needed- however I would say that if there is a large party of the time that the employer can’t do, then this is not reasonable and they should not be in the role. OP would need to explore and document all reasonable adjustments explored first.

Negroany · 16/03/2025 08:23

CandidHedgehog · 16/03/2025 07:26

I’ve linked the guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission twice including in the quote tree you are replying to.

The accommodations needed (and those that don’t need to be made because the effect on the business are too great) are discussed at p8.

Show quote history

Right. So not the Equality Act, and not reasonable adjustments. Also, nothing to do with direct discrimination, but rather the defence for (some types of) indirect discrimination which is an entirely different thing.

Though it wasn't you who posted the comment I was responding to.

Lentilweaver · 16/03/2025 08:19

I can't imagine asking any client of mine to provide a female employee to sit nearby.

CandidHedgehog · 16/03/2025 08:14

andHelenknowsimmiserablenow · 16/03/2025 08:09

But OP has said that they would charge the client for the meeting per hour. They would not be happy to pay the extra cost of a second person?

Show quote history

They wouldn’t have to in this situation.

It is being suggested a female employee of the client sit nearby and get on with her own work. No payment required. Edited to say: other than wages already due.

I’m not saying this is practical and the OP has already said there are no women in the office but that’s what is being suggested.

andHelenknowsimmiserablenow · 16/03/2025 08:09

UnhappyAndYouKnowIt · 16/03/2025 08:02

A chaperone would only need to be any female person within eyeline. Does the client honestly not have a single female on their premises?

Show quote history

But OP has said that they would charge the client for the meeting per hour. They would not be happy to pay the extra cost of a second person?

indigovapour · 16/03/2025 08:04

jolies1 · 16/03/2025 07:52

Have you asked her what could work for her?

Discuss that client meetings are a part of the job & you would like to support her. Has she any suggestions how she could manage this aspect of the role? Eg meet clients in your office, meet somewhere neutral like a cafe, take a trusted member of the team with her? Did she understand this would be a part of her day job, how is she feeling about that?

Does it matter at all if any of this works for the (soon to be ex) client?

Regretsmorethanafew · 16/03/2025 08:03

SeaShellsSanctuary1 · 16/03/2025 08:01

You need to find out what the legal implications are from HR. It's as simple as that

Good job OP has said multiple times she's going to.

UnhappyAndYouKnowIt · 16/03/2025 08:02

GelatinousDynamo · 15/03/2025 23:22

So, I haven't replied to her and won't until I've spoken to someone who can tell me big No's. I have a meeting with our HR lady first thing Monday, and we will be trying to consult a lawyer the same day. Trying to tread very carefully here.

If need be, I can make the client appointment myself, but of course it will throw our fee calculation (and everything else) completely overboard.

To all those suggesting a chaperone: you've never worked in a professional setting, have you? Taking an aunt to a client appointment? They'd never take her seriously after such a stunt. She's a senior, not some fresh intern. Would you also suggest bringing your mum to a job interview? What a load of bollocks. But thanks for the laugh.

Edited

A chaperone would only need to be any female person within eyeline. Does the client honestly not have a single female on their premises?

SeaShellsSanctuary1 · 16/03/2025 08:01

You need to find out what the legal implications are from HR. It's as simple as that

CandidHedgehog · 16/03/2025 08:01

Regretsmorethanafew · 16/03/2025 07:57

The UK isn't one of them, and noone is winning a tribunal for that

Show quote history

For the OP laughing at them and telling them their cultural norm is ‘bollocks’? I wouldn’t count on it and since the issue can easily be avoided by the OP being polite, she’d be sensible to do so.

Regretsmorethanafew · 16/03/2025 07:59

coldcallerbaiter · 15/03/2025 23:06

That is disingenuous. What is the reason behind the rule, to protect the woman from a man.

Show quote history

It isn't. It's to protect the man from her and her womanly wiles.
Depressing but true.

Swipe left for the next trending thread