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

OP doesn't say multiple times though, it might be a one off meeting.

And then there'll be another meeting with another client. And another. And another. Because that's the job she's employed to do. And OP can't ask every prospective cient 'can you guarantee there'll be a woman present when my team member comes to you?' Or if she does, prospective clients will soon start looking elsewhere for their technical assistance.

When I read posts like:
'she's being a PITA. Get rid'
'Give her the sack. Only 2 months in and she has pulled this stunt'
'Just fail her after probation. Easiest way'

-it looks uncomfortably close to glee.

And the various comments about how troublesome Muslims & other religious people are and what an inconvenience to the rest of us, eg: 'these people are very litiginous', 'this person is a religious grifter'.

We don't know what the situation is with this woman; it could be due to her own genuine, freely-held beliefs or it could be more complex (as other posters have pointed out - pressure from a relative, or a cover for different concerns altogether?)

The way forward is to get expert advice before taking any actions on this which the OP, wisely, has said she is doing.

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?

Meeting in person with the client(s) is “genuinely part of the job she’s contracted to do and is being paid for”.

Perhaps the private sector understands the value of in-person meetings.

You are comparing apple and pears. The employee works in a technical, advisory role in a male dominated sector. She is being asked to perform the specialist role for which she was recruited, in a professional environment, with other professionals, onsite with her client. Working at a client site is an expectation in many advisory roles as is the likelihood that you might be the only female in a room full of men.

This is genuinely part of her religion. Though they may be some exemption for necessity. Even she goes she'd refuse to shake their hands.

OP isn't in the public sector.

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.

The employee wouldn't have the right to know the sex of her colleagues never mind clients. She could easily have found herself in a totally male office on her first day.

The employer has a requirement to make reasonable adjustments but if the adjustments are not reasonable and would be cumbersome they they have a defence. In this case the defence would also be they have a duty to not allow sex discrimination to be carried out against their clients. Op has made it clear this is likely to keep coming up in practice.

Employers do not have to bend to every ask/requirement of a religion if it is not practical and if it conflicts with another protected characteristic. Eg they do not have to offer prayer breaks at certain times if it affects the business/ clashes with busy periods. We would not accept a male colleague refusing to work with us as we are female. The main thing is that they can show everything they looked at and why it will not work.

I don't think any one is gleeful about depriving a woman of income. I suspect most have an issue with women being pulled back into the dark ages by restrictive practices. There are enough attacks womens rights and autonomy without the chokehold of religious dogma.

OP doesn't say multiple times though, it might be a one off meeting.

I'm public sector and where I work travel is pretty much completely off the table due to funding. Everything has to be done via Teams, with special provisions in place due to the sensitivity of a lot of our work. I'm struggling to understand why a face-to-face meeting is necessary when most of the UK Govt is managing without them.

Also the client might well not be local. OP talks about 'day' so there could be travel involved.

But the whole concept of sending a chaperone is, in afraid, batshit. It's not practical or economical, and it will affect how the client perceives the colleague and the company.

You might think that's wrong, but it's human nature.

Most companies don’t have admin assistants or secretaries anymore - my DH’s company hasn’t had them for a decade as all the things they used to do (travel, expenses, meetings etc) are all more easily and quickly done online, directly, by each employee. And suggesting that any such employees’s work is so unimportant that they can be spared for 2-3 hours, possibly multiple times a week, kind of smacks of denigrating their role?

Surely there is an admin assistant or secretary who can be spared for a few hours one afternoon to go along with her.

And who is doing her work while she's sitting around watching someone else work?

And I don't think op has said how long the employee would need to be onsite. It might be a few hours one afternoon, it might be longer, it might be repeated visits.

A big unknown … is what exactly is the issue.

Is it working outside the office, because employee doesn’t know the situation in a client workplace??
At a client workplace, their own employees, visitors and clients can move around changing the gender dynamics in their offices at any time.

Does this employee need to know for 100% certain who & their gender will be at any place where she has a meeting.

It’s difficult to understand if it’s just this one client, or if it will be all external clients. It’s not appropriate for OP to ask clients the number and gender of people in a meeting room, and if there is glass, or who in the building and ask client to guarantee gender attendance.

If she can never visit an external client, and it’s required then there are decisions that need to be made. She can take a job that is internal only … but if it requires an additional hire to do job she isn’t doing - then it’s too costly to be reasonable.

Employee needs to define the issue with external meetings. Is it this one? Or ALL.

If this was likely to be a one-off, I'd try to accommodate her. But if she's working in a technical field where most of your clients are male, then she can't reasonably do her job. HR and legal are the way to go.

Surely there is an admin assistant or secretary who can be spared for a few hours one afternoon to go along with her. They can take notes, learn a bit more about the business and get a bit of a change from the office. Problem solved.

Yes, of course the question would need to be asked to all candidates. There may be others who are not religious, but may be unconfident of doing this part of the job and will refuse it. If the expectation is laid out straight away then the company will not be on the back foot after they have already employed someone.

One of the norms of British life is abiding by the rule of law, including the Equality Act, which states that it is illegal to discriminate against employees due to protected characteristics and reasonable adjustments must be made.

Religious belief is a protected characteristic.

Which happens literally all the time. Never seen estate agents in pairs showing houses.

I think you need to go on your own, but not charge the client extra (as I presume your /hr is higher than hers) - as it's not the client's fault that your employee is refusing to do her job.
I'd figure out with HR the proper process to transition your new hire out - so that you are covered. But it really is not about discrimination here - she is simply refusing OR not able to perform her job. This is not a case of you trying to send her to entertain clients on Ramadan, or something like that.

It's nothing like going into someone's house. She's going to a company's offices. A professional environment!

How do you think any women can carry out a professional role without having meetings with other professionals at their offices? Do you think every woman drags a colleague or their auntie with them?

Err

It isn't reasonable from an insurance and health and safety point of view for either business to bring a randomer onto the premises who won't be insured to be there!

Also the clients might rightly object to said randomer having access to confidential information. If this is a technology or research contract relating to a listed company it could constitute inside information which random people aren't legally allowed access to if it can affect share prices!

No your reasonable adjustment is not reasonable.

Is there a workaround - like the client visiting your premises to do the work?

Read the op's posts. She has said more than once that it is not possible to do the work in her office, or in a coffeeshop, or via Teams or Zoom.

As to taking an unpaid chaperone, the client would have to agree to having some random person who isn't employed by them or by op's company on their premises. There might be all sorts of reasons why they don't think it's appropriate.

I thought it was also widely understood that an employee cannot discriminate against a client on the basis of their sex. This employee is refusing to provide a service to her clients due to their sex. There doesn't seem to be any satisfactory accommodation that doesn't cost the business the entire profit and maybe also the relationship.

Unless the employee is willing to sacrifice her entire pay on the deal to being along a female colleague but again that may not be satisfactory to the client if aspects are meant to be confidential. At the end of the day the employee accepted this role knowing that her religion would interfere with her ability to do the work.

No, but she will be the lone representative of the company. Like an estate agent going into a house with clients.