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

I am sure that most posters are not gleeful. And the ultimate outcome might be that this employee has to leave the business; but it should not be a matter of 'managing her out'. The focus now needs to be on trying to make it work.

The OP is taking legal advice which should make her aware of the bottom line of what her employer is required by law to accommodate. It may be that what the employee is asking for is reasonable - but that will probably depend on a number of factors such as how central client visits are to the role, how often these arise, the resources of the organisation etc.

It is possible that the employee didn't think through what her chosen profession will entail. And I know there are a lot of grifters out there - but there is no evidence this employee is one of them. Nor would I accuse her of 'lying by omission' without evidence. Most people won't raise these matters during their interviews, which are about selling their suitability for the role. The responsibility is on the recruiter/prospective employer to ensure they make the role requirements clear from the outset.

And the reason for the no-men rule? There is no place for policing the purity/modesty or becoming soiled by temptation or temptation thoughts in the UK workplace. Zero.

I suppose that what I disagree with, it’s a personal non-work related sexual modesty-purity issue which has no place in a company (unless it’s a brothel I guess). My boss shouldn’t need to protect my modesty or prevent temptation by making sure I am never alone in a meeting room with a man. That Should not be my bosses job, nor should my employer need to make sure I never need to work with a man.

In my opinion, as an employer, I don’t owe that to an employee. Person needs find a job that fits her needs.

I'll revise my comment to most people. There are always some people who are gleeful but most are not.

I personally think she should be managed out of the business. Working in male heavy sector but refusing to work where there are no other women present in a room at a client site is unreasonable. All clients are unfamilar until they are repeat clients. Unless the OP is expected to not pitch to win new work there will always be new clients.

I also find it hard to believe that the employee didn't think working in her sector with teams of men she doesn't know at a client site was not a possibility. She definitely knows how she wants to practice her religion, and that is at odds with the norms of the role. It's lying by omission.

I have quite a few friends who have recruitment responsibilities for their teams. There are some real grifters out there. Some grifters observe a religion, some don't. Once they are in and impacting business it can be hard to get them out.

I mean Islam does prohibit it. Free mixing between the sexes is forbidden.

More weasel words. What is "free" mixing, as opposed to (presumably) paid mixing ? From what I have read here the requirement to attend the all male meeting is a work one. So surely paid and therefore not "free".

Of course now I'm the idiot.

Also, all religions have clearly created exceptions on how they interact with reality. I know that no matter how devoted a Jew you are, you can't use the Sabbath as an excuse to not save a life ( pikuach nefesh (פיקוח נפש),) And of course, the Qu'ran instructs believers to obey the law of their host land.

I am ever curious as to whether there is a specific instruction in the Qu'ran about a woman not being allowed in the company of men.

Well that balls. Hundreds of thousands? Doubtful. Would she even win given she didn’t declare anything before accepting the job? Doubtful.
would she even bother taking it to tribunal? Doubtful.
it seems as if she should be applying to companies where they may already have procedures in place.

I was thinking one could possibly use some of the techniques developed for lone working for the employee in question to make her feel safer eg providing a device to allow her to sound the alert should she feel unsafe. It may be however, that safety is not the prime consideration. If that is the case, it is going to be more difficult to accommodate the preference. I can see the argument for modesty in some work contexts eg a changing room (which by law cannot be mixed sex) but it is hard to see how it can be supported in a normal meeting setup where all participants will be fully dressed.

It’s all made up. FFS.
But more importantly she didn’t declare any of this.
If a Christian applied for a weekend role at Tesco but said at interview ‘Sorry, I can’t work in the Sabbath’ they wouldn’t be hired.
if someone didn’t say this, applied for a job that included Sundays then claimed they couldn’t work them - I’d say the same thing- get rid in probation.

I actually don't think it is asking too much for people to make some moderate adjustments to their lives to accommodate people's beliefs.

.... and we're back at the start again. One persons "moderate adjustments" could be another persons mortal sin.

Personally, despite not really being a people person, I find human behaviour and it's foibles and fairy stories fascinating. But even then I would object to be required to do something to please someone elses made up idea of what goes on in the universe.

She didn’t declare not being able to work with men at the interview! Thats HUGE and massively impacts her effectiveness. Anyone in probation can be not kept in in that period, no justification needed but OP should probably say, ok fine about the appt, then get rid of her

I mean Islam does prohibit it. Free mixing between the sexes is forbidden.

My honest opinion is that this girl is rightfully practicing her religion but she should seek employment elsewhere.

There is authentic hadith explicitly prohibiting opposite sex physical contact: "For one of you to be stabbed in the head with an iron needle is better for him than that he should touch a woman who is not permissible for him"

Except she is also committing illegal sex discrimination by refusing to provide a service to her male clients, because they are male.

Religion doesn't get to override other protected characteristics

Hope that helps

Managing someone out because they have told you they cannot do a particular job due to a protected characteristic is also illegal. Hope that helps. It's constructive/unfair dismissal and bullying.

If you did try to force her to do this particular bit of work, then yes, you would almost definitely be breaking the law. Religion is a protected characteristic, and you would most likely be taken to a tribunal and made to pay hundreds of thousands. Because your discrimination would be so blatant. Hope that helps.

I think if all take a step back and think about it properly we would all see that it is entirely unreasonable to expect an employer to ensure a female employee is never left alone with a male colleague, client or customer, or with only males in all situations.

It is simply not possible in ANY industry. Even midwifery or anything female leaning.
No tribunal would ever conclude that an employer had to make such an impossible adjustment to accommodate such a belief.

Particularly as it would be discriminating on the grounds of sex for all other staff,clients and customers and would create a toxic environment for all. It could never be managed when leave, sickness, new hires, retirees, colleague divorces and simple office dynamics are taken into account.

The key thing for OP is around how this is communicated to the employee. It needs to be explained why, and for her to decide if she is able to continue in the role. She has the right to believe she shouldn't be in a room with a male but she doesn't have the right to have that belief enforced or imposed on everyone else. Everyone else has the right to deal with a company to receive a service or be in their workplace without having their sex called out as being a problem, and it being the reason for their day or office movements being disrupted.

I would manage her out now during probation. Harsh but true. You weren’t aware of this before you hired her.
ii have little/ no sympathy for anyone using religion of any kind like this. It’s not like it’s a mobility issue or something. Not being able to do something because of made up rules…
But yes, protected characteristic so tread carefully but do it now

Not in this country, you don't!

I actually don't think it is asking too much for people to make some moderate adjustments to their lives to accommodate people's beliefs. I think reasonable people actually do that all the time, and with friends as well as colleagues. The fact they hold certain beliefs you don't share does not make them unworthy of respect as people.

It is not clear what is being asked of the OP's employer and whether it is manageable. It may be that this employee can be accommodated relatively easily without colleagues having to make changes, though of course in practice this will depend on a number of factors.

But she can still claim it was due to discrimination on the grounds of religion.

^

She can claim, yes

It's not a tough one

In western, civilised society women deal with men

If she doesn't like it, she should go live in a country where this isn't the norm

But she can still claim it was due to discrimination on the grounds of religion. The OP needs to be very careful.

Way to miss the point! The poster didnt suggest another role without a penis. Only the lowest paid role in a particular industry. And didn't explain why this imaginary female would be able to take time away from her own role to sit and observe a meeting she has no business being at in the first place.

Private sector businesses have very many valid reasons to hold in person meetings..confidentiality being a very common and important one.

No, it's part of her culture, Pepjjgf; just as with handshaking there's nothing in the Holy Quran to prohibit this and it's come from later "interpretations" and customs, which are often introduced by those keen to oppress women

I suppose she'd say it's "religion" if a less forward looking imam has backed it, but again Islam has no "central authority" and a lot gets left to community leaders

Very telling that you have assumed that any secretary or admin assistant would naturally be female and that their own job would be of so little value that they could be spared in order to prevent this other employee practicing sex discrimination against the companies clients.

@blubberyboo to assume that the secretary or admin assistant is female is a very reasonable and logical assumption in the context because if they were male that would not solve the problem and in fact add another penis to the room.

We don't know what the situation is with this woman; it could be due to her own genuine, freely-held beliefs

But we return to the crux of all "equality". Why in the name of Dawkins should other people be requried to make changes in their lives for these beliefs ? Especially when it's been long established that equality of religion encompasses peoples right to have no religion.

You do you, But if your you is to tell me that I have to <insert whacky religious obligation> then my me is to say "I don't think so" in whatever form seems appropriate. Even if I can quote the Bbile chapter and verse.

If it’s “genuinely part of her religion” then why have other Muslims on this thread said they wouldn’t have a problem with this scenario?

Well it couldn't be becasue all religion is made up could it ?