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

No.

is this indirect sexual discrimination? the men can't help being men all together and their sex is a protected characteristic

The chaperoning is not because of the threat the man may ‘do something’. It’s a religious requirement of the faith. So your anger would be misplaced and pointless.

Wouldn't the male client feel insulated if op had to ask him if an aunt could accompany this lady or can he provide a female chaperone at his end to protect this woman from him??

Just as we are offended when a Muslim man won't shake our hand??

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

If the respondent asks for it to be dismissed as no merit (no reasonable prospect of success), that can be looked at but it still extremely rarely gets thrown out. The respondent can ask for a deposit order, say £1000, from the claimant to continue the case, bur in my experience they simply claim penury and the judge denies the request - I've never had a deposit order awarded.

Then, it's vanishingly rare that the claimant is on the hook for the respondent's costs. Again, I've never got a costs order. And if the respondent threatens a costs order the court really doesn't like that (though I often do it anyway, it does sometimes lead to cases being dropped).

And, after all that, if you even got the order, they wouldn't pay. The likelihood of them being able to pay is extremely low. And they simply refuse anyway. So you start again with another court case, throwing good money after bad.

I find it hard to believe that anyone who works in a technical advisory role would not expect to be the only female in the room at times. There aren't many advisory firms in legal, finance, engineering or tech where men don't significantly outnumber women. Its an emboldened grift and I suspect she wasn't given prestigious work in her last firm because she had them by the short and curlies on the ground of said protected characteristic.

this is a work environment. Outside of this situation would it be acceptable for you to bring your aunt or sister along?

Not "veganism" per se, but having a whole way of life based around veganism, as in - it's a core belief and part of your value system. The man in the case this refers to, for example, didn't drive so as not to kill flies. It was more than veganism.

So, it's not quite right to say veganism itself it a protected characteristic. Belief is a protected characteristic, and veganism in some specific circumstances can be considered a belief. For example, veganism for health reasons would probably not be given the same protection.

You have to have that discussion during her probationary period and not at the end of it.

This situation is exactly where equality legislation is being abused, undermining faith in it for the people really that need it. Characteristics of religion which go again gender equality and reasonable social norms should not be protected. providing a space where someone can pray is a reasonable accommodation. Acquiescing to an employee who doesn't want to be alone with men because of religious or cultural beliefs is a not reasonable accommodation.

The employee knew it would be an issue and yet applied for the role. I have zero sympathy for her. I hope the OP gets good advice and cuts her losses. The employee will be an expensive weight around her neck.

If the case has no merit, the employee will be informed of that before the tribunal actually takes place, and they can be required to pay the costs incurred by the employer up to that point.

If anything, the formal nature of how OP is behaving to the employee (fair, professional and legal) will indicate to the employee that this is a difficult company to 'pull one over', if that was even her initial intent

Providing OP does stick to those aims I agree with this, @blueshoes
As you suggest this isn't a mere chat between friends but a potentially thorny situation, and sticking with professionalism would be wise

On the "pulling one over" thing, with not knowing this employee I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt, but there's no denying such things do happen and it can be the answer to a PP's sensible suggestion about doing freelance work ... as in if there's not a direct employer there's no chance of a payout

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.

what if it is the other way around? surely that would be sexist?

This.

Bear in mind if she went to tribunal, even if her case has no merit it will cost your organisation many thousands

Please ignore these armchair HR experts suggesting you insist she goes / fail her probation! You need to take PROPER advice from an HR professional before you do anything. They will advise you to investigate more fully what prevents her from attending, and you may need to consider making reasonable adjustments - IF that’s possible in order for her to do the majority of her job. As others have said, religious belief is a protected characteristic so be VERY careful and make sure you have good advice before you act.

Under employment law you can’t discriminate based on religion and should make reasonable adjustments (where possible) It is the where possible that is open to interpretation. Is it possible at all?Some Muslims are fine working with men in shared spaces but not with being alone with them in certain settings. Is it about being alone with men in an unfamiliar environment? Could the client provide a female staff member to be present? Did she know the meeting would be held there and not at your place of work?
It is tricky for everyone but depending on the job - is it reasonable she would expect to be accommodated?

It’s irrelevant whether she’s a new hire. She has protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and these give her rights from day one.

I disagree with being open and transparent once there is someone playing the religion card. This is not a fireside chat. Everything the OP says and does can be used against her.

I agree that the OP has to be very careful and take legal advice - which is the opposite of being open - and in fact quite stylised as to what can be said and clear as to boundaries which OP cannot cross. OP should have a clear idea before opening any discussion what are the core requirements of the role, what was in the job spec (written and to be understood), what was said by the employee at interview, what adjustments can reasonably be made, and whether there will a period of monitoring and what the performance indicators over that period will be. Then document the discussion and going forward.

The law is on the employee's side and the OP's obligation is to comply. Everything has to be 'HR'-ed and documented from this point to get to the correct result.

If anything, the formal nature of how OP is behaving to the employee (fair, professional and legal) will indicate to the employee that this is a difficult company to 'pull one over', if that was even her initial intent.

Yes, it does. Reasonable adjustment applies to any of the protected characteristics covered by the Equality Act 2010. In cases such as the OP’s, the reason for adjustment is to avoid indirect discrimination as a result of policy or rule which would disproportionately affect the employee.

Think I'd be asking HER what she wants to happen/thinks should happen to resolve this issue! Maybe she'll have some suggestions

I agree, @Butchyrestingface; discussing issues is almost always a good idea, and as you say she may come up with something nobody else has thought of

Alternatively of course, she may take the view "That's your problem", in which case that would be instructive too

Is she a new hire? If not I would be looking to fire her. She is already problematic and this would impact the company as it is directly impacting clients. She has not mentioned this previously because she knew she wouldnt be hired. Speak to HR first and then decide.

@Beeloux if its not actually anything to do with the Koran but more cultural or just male dominance why isn't there more open push back against it from the community and people who know?

Accomodation must be reasonable …

A minder - an every minute female person who can have no freedom of movement while employee X is working and must accompany her around premises is not reasonable.

The client, might be happy to be sure there is a woman around, but making that woman be where your employee X scheduled every minute is not ok.

The men might feel that they are discriminated against as “dangerous” - I think a lot of men would be really offended causing more HR problems.

It is not reasonable to hire a female-minder or carer. The expense and need to accommodate that minders need for “freedom” is not reasonable.

What is reasonable is for that person’s work to be in the office. Not outside at clients.

You cannot supervise what goes on outside your premises. She could be at a client where there is a woman present, then the woman goes to lunch or Dr appointment and your employee must also leave - it’s not reasonable.
Give her choice, talk about how could accommodate her then you decide. If she cannot do the work required then she’s not in the right job.

Freelance or contract work for her could be better then she can choose her own jobs based on office demographics.