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

No they don't, not the muslim hijab wearing Dr's I work with. They are professionals and act accordingly.

If I was the client I would be furious if a female had to see me with a chaperone in case I did something., it's highly insulting to the man even if "auntie" wanted to go or grandma.

Religion is a "protected characteristic" under UK law, if I'm remembering right? That means that more allowances etc have to be made - not sure how far it goes, but I'd definitely check, before you say or do anything.

Sounds exceedingly tiresome though x

All this might work well for large businesses, swap assignments, send a chaperone. What about those of us who are trying to make a small business work.

I have three employees, all employed and capable of the job I need them to do. 2/3 have extensive adjustments, but they told me what they needed and I knew I could work with them, because they could still do the job they applied for. The adjustments also don’t negatively impact on my employee who has none, because things have to be balanced in a small company.

there is nobody to chaperone. There is no meeting in a public place as everything is highly confidential. Ideally I could do with adding two more people, but the 4 of us work well together, but I’m terrified of crap like this.

if someone can’t do a big portion of the job, they have no business applying for it, and hiding behind protected characteristics for this reason would be the end of a small company.

I'd speak to hr with regards on how to handle it. It's a difficult one because not all Muslims will of course act in the same way. I work in healthcare so I'm touching unrelated males as part of the job not just in their company. For me it is what it is and in the context of my job I don't see it as an issue. She clearly feels differently to me but must understand that it will hold her back in the workplace and that she could lose a job as a result.

But why not have the conversation first?

Well, the employee could have had the conversation at any time since she was offered the job, so that OP could have planned differently, instead of springing it on OP at the last minute.

She shares her office with a male colleague and has no problems shaking hands with men... So this sort of came out of nowhere. Might be because that office has a glass wall so they're not technically alone?

Presumably there are women in your office as well as the man? Hence she is not alone with a man. But the department you want to send her to is staffed by all men (sounds like a gender diversity there).

I'm lapsed Catholic and usually very sympathetic to people's religious beliefs/requirements. But what an absolute ball ache for you. Think I'd be asking HER what she wants to happen/thinks should happen to resolve this issue! Maybe she'll have some suggestions.

It is not

It’s not direct discrimination, which is what you’re referring to. That would be sacking her because she’s Muslim. That would be illegal. However if this woman is dismissed it’s not directly because she’s Muslim, but indirectly as the employer’s expectation she works with men places her at a disadvantage due to her religion. The employer can attempt to justify the latter form of discrimination, but not the former

You say she shares an office with a man is this on her own? Is it that she is picking and choosing?

As everyone is saying - get legal advice but clearly she can’t do her job.

But to religious people, it’s not a choice, it’s part of who you are.

During Ramadan, some Muslims who follow the faith strictly refrain from s*x and anything that may lead them to it. So she may (and this is really only speculation) be being extra cautious and strict on herself by saying no time with men alone. It really is about trying to understand culture and religion a bit further and genuinely seeing what can be done to support her whilst also meeting the business needs. If nothing can be done and she still refuses to perform tasks that are deemed essential, then it could go down a performance management route. But why not have the conversation first? Why are so many comments advocating for the passive aggressive underhand way. There are laws to protect both employer and employee. Follow them properly and enforce them when needed too. The problem arises when either party doesnt follow laws and regulations and refuse to take accountability so end up in litigation.

We've had to deal with Muslim men who wouldn't accept female managers before, but this is more complicated than that.

it really isn’t, in fact it is the same. Chaperoning her isn’t feasible. Contact HR and take their lead. I have worked with many a muslin man and woman and have never encountered these issues.

Sorry but as someone who lived and worked in the Gulf as well as having a Muslim XH, I think this is rubbish. My former company over there was predominately made up of Muslims where males and females worked together.

What is more likely is that she has a controlling husband who doesn’t want her conversing with other men at work. My XH didn’t want me answering the door to male delivery drivers.

And here is the reason why workplaces are so toxic. Why wouldn't you just be transparent and say lets meet and discuss your needs and see how we can accommodate them but also ensure the business needs are met too. No harm in reminding her that the adjustments have to be reasonable only though and there are no promises that all of her needs can be met. If a victim of SA said she felt uncomfortable about being on a male only site, would you just advise to fail her probation for no good cause? I am not saying employers should bend over backwards at all but they are obliged to follow the LAW and not just fire someone who is performing well according to the time they have been there because they have expressed a religious need. If she has no plans to be honest and say 'I am failing your probation because you said your religion forbids you from working with an all male team' then its because she knows that that is potentially against the LAW. So why not just follow the law on this? consult HR or legal and actually do things properly? OR she would just make up some random untrue reason why she hasn't passed probation. Unethical and quite frankly likely to get her in hot water if she does not handle this carefully.

If she can’t fulfil the role then I wouldn’t be keeping her on after her probation. Religion is not like disability. It is a choice. She is capable of doing the meeting but she is choosing not to due to her religion. That’s her choice but it means she isn’t fit for the role

Jesus! WTF did that woman think a bar job entailed when she applied to work in a fucking club?

I admit upfront I have only read all of your posts so apologies if someone else has mentioned this but I assume she is still in her probationary period. Was it made clear at interview and offer that the work involved on-site visits unaccompanied and with clients? Either way be explicit now that this is a key feature of the job and if she can not fulfill the role then it's time to part ways now before she is established and a relationship is built with clients.

The shocking thing wasnt just the lone visit because those still happen. It was that her employer didn’t have a check in system so when she went missing no one noticed. It was days before anyone bothered to check on her. I visit residents and know lots of women professionals who do too. It’s part of my job - but there are ways of protecting oneself that don’t involve a chaperone. And in 30 years of working thats been fine - I’ve decided to dodge situations I didn’t like maybe twice. There was one situation a couple of years ago where I was due to visit someone who was a hoarder so I took someone with me - but that was mainly in case the stuff fell on me

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?? Client confidentiality might be an issue though.

It basically says an employer can defend a claim of indirect discrimination if it can show their action is justifiable as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This is literally what I said in my first post on this thread.

it is still not a duty to make reasonable adjustments, which only applies in disability.

Because how devout is devout?

Like a persons religion or music taste that is a matter of personal choice

Exactly my thoughts
I’ve had clients complain about staff turning up in trainers - someone bringing their mum or auntie… 🤣🤣 bye bye career

Why do you think there are extra precautions ?

Part of what made the Lamplugh case so headline worthy was the shocking revelation that women were regularly sent out alone into such situations. Feeling they couldn't refuse.