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

Acas may well tell people their case is weak, but they would never say "no merit", and they cannot stop people bringing the claim, nor do they try to.

Their role is to try to find a compromise if both parties want to, which means they try to make the employer pay the employee to drop the claim. I have only ever once had a claim dropped with no payment by the employer and that was on the promise of a neutral reference (which we would have done anyway), though the lowest I have paid was £42.

Unions (and "so forth") rarely have anything to do with it.

To conflate observing a religion through choice with a sexual assault is disgusting.

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.

It’s all so tiresome.

I feel for you OP and hope you can get this resolved without too much hassle.

No doubt this will influence future hiring decisions.

are you being particularly rude to make yourself feel superior? I asked a question and you gave fuck all of an answer, then when I ask if you can elaborate you are down right rude calling me dense - asking a question is not being dense.

The OP doesn't say if those meetings were at the client site.

Lets adjust the characters in this story. Instead of a moslem woman lets say its a woman returning to work after a traumatic sexual attack (I've had to manage this more than once in my career in the same industry, working for clients).

Would the response then be "sod off and get a girls job then" as suggested by a number of PPs or would the expectation be that we first look to see what adjustments can be made. The OP hasn't mentioned or seemingly given thought to any adjustments which might work in this situation which seems odd for someone experienced in sending consultants to clients.

Just off the top of my head for a meeting:

• if junior they would typically have a member of our client team to join, bringing client knowledge to the meeting
• if more experienced and leading with more content they would have a junior with them capturing minutes, notes and actions

Two immediate opportunities to add another woman to the mix.

Others:

• invite them to hold the meeting in our offices
• see if there is a more open office area to have the meeting
• discuss with the client how to manage accommodations - IME clients are often more than willing to help accommodate any particular needs, they want the work done and its no skin off their nose
• there will be a whole raft of specific suggestions which could be considered and will vary by client and industry.

I'm bemused that someone working in a management position in a consulting organisation wouldn't immediately run through these types of options to solve the immediate issue, then schedule a 1-1 with the new staff member to clarify where there might be issues or not for future scheduling. This is bread and butter stuff when sending staff out to clients - our people are our capital, we look after them, we don't tell them to fuck off into a "girls" industry (or equivalent).

I have actually said several times that ‘reasonable’ is the key here.

Because the employee has a protected characteristic and the employer has a policy or rule that is potentially indirectly discriminatory in that it disadvantages the employee because of that protected characteristic.. There are no such consequences for the men.

Have you asked her on what suggestions she has to allow you to provide the service? She may have her own ideas.
Im thinking of a chaperone, or just do it via Teams, or just assign this client to someone else.
if you are happy with her work, please don’t let this be a reason to part ways, I’d suggest bringing her in to finding the solution.

Im guessing… hangry

Nope. Nice try though.

That was my contribution. 😁

@Lovelysausagedogscrumpy but this requirement but stem from something the same has hair covering and being separated in mosques?

Like all religions, Islam has a broad spectrum of ways in which people choose to practise their faith. As a Muslim woman, I have no problems working with, presenting to, supervising, etc., men. I work in a pretty male-dominated field. But if the woman in the OP isn't comfortable for whatever reason, what other Muslim women may do or not do isn't going to change her discomfort. It's also possible that there's more going on than a simple conservative interpretation of boundaries, but she might not feel comfortable discussing whatever else might be going on at work.

@GelatinousDynamo , in the first instance, I'd ask her what she would suggest, given that from what you've said, the task doesn't need two people and has to be done on-site. Is there a way she can see to make it work, or is this simply something that she feels she cannot do at all? If she feels she can't do it, then can you find someone else who can do it? I think you also need HR input on this - they may have ideas on reasonable adjustments and if this is incompatible with the requirements of the job then they need to be aware asap.

Reasonable adjustment. Reasonable is what is important.

Employing a female babysitter to accompany employee in case she encounters an all male situation while at a client is not reasonable. it costs too much money.

If job can be successful remotely, fine.

If job requires site visit … then she can’t go because don’t have a babysitter for her.

Must be handled with documentation and correct language, and employee needs to agree that she can’t go to client.

You need legal advice but if not mentioned at interview etc then I would think this is basically refusing to do her job = gross misconduct and you can sack her. I work with loads of people who are Muslim and often work with only men, she's being ridiculous.

Are you being deliberately dense?

For a start, the other company are not employees of the OP's company so they do not have the obligation to make any adjustments under employment law.

And the employees have not been disadvantaged in any way by this specific company representative not wanting to attend their office alone.

They are not disadvantaged. Currently they probably know nothing about it and even if they did, there's no disadvantage.

Also, indirect discrimination has a specific meaning. It's not just "almost discrimination" which seems to be what you are suggesting. It's a provision, criterion or practice that has the effect of placing people with a particular protected characteristic at a disadvantage.

Like saying you have to be six foot to be a police officer disadvantages women. While there are six foot women, on average, women are not six foot.

I'm Muslim and find this quite ridiculous if she already shares an office with a male coworker. However, easiest thing would be to do what previous posters have said and send another female colleague alongside her. Or do it via teams. Probably best to have a conversation with her about how to manage these situations in the future though as it won't be a one off by the sounds of it.

care to explain why?

I'd be tempted to reply

Hi x. I'm a bit confused. You have met this client and knew you would be working with them on this project. Why are you only raising this issue now?

I’ve not read all of this so apologies if this is nonsense but would it be acceptable for to take a female family member or similar along with her? Someone to chaperone but who you’re not paying??

I think this is a good idea. It's like when we allow some animals if they are service animals into places where no other animals arrive. Or a cane, or a wheelchair or similar. The company doesn't pay for the animal or cane or wheelchair, but doesn't forbid the employee from the accommodation. Can that work? She covers her own accommodation need of a chaperone?

Client confidentiality might be an issue though.

Could you have said chaperone sign a waiver?

I'm from a Muslim country and this is ridiculous. Its more cultural than religion. No Muslim lady I know of would do this.

This is correct, Lovelysausagedogscrumpy, but it doesn't stop some spouting the magic word "tribunal" in the hope it'll scare an employer into caving, either because they've not acquainted themselves with the law or just can't be bothered with the hassle

Ironically it can cause more hassle in the end because such an approach can attract others who'll try the same thing, which is where the need to remain professional at all times comes in

Pretty rare they are told it has no merit. There's no "triage" for tribunal cases

Edited to add there may be no "triaging" by tribunal staff, @Negroany, but there is on the journey there via ACAS, unions and so forth, who certainly have enough expertise to advise what's likely to fly and what isn't

Getting legal employment advice via your HR Dept is definitely needed.

However, as an employer I would think that it's not a reasonable adjustment to ask all clients if they are just male employees present in their meetings and if they are, I would say again it's unreasonable to be expected to provide an additional employee at cost to chaperone. An external one could not be used as not under contract with your firm and therefore not subject to referencing / data protection, etc. Meeting attendees also change - so what happens if she shows up and the attendees are now all men present, she's going to refuse the meeting and your company is going to look unprofessional.

It's an interesting situation, please update with the outcome OP when you can.