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

Also "unpaid" doesn't work as it's a job, and jobs must be paid.

No. She won't be alone, will she? That's actually the problem!

But this is her deeply held belief system.

So are Star Wards and Tolkien. Yet I've never heard of someone having to use the force to deal with a project.

As a side note: why are so many posters, including the OP, repeating what their DHs advised, as if it is at all relevant?

If this wasn't MN, I'd say irony.

It just strikes me as odd and not about it being OK or otherwise. I share opinions with those close to me like all of us, but I don't think I would post 'my sister thinks x', implying that this proves that of course, my sister thinking it makes it valid. Because if I agree with my sister then it is my opinion too - so why not just state that?

Why would a random DH of a poster know more than anyone else posting?
I could cite my (considerable) business experience and knowledge of the law; but frankly I know I can't advise exactly what to do in this situation as I am not there on the ground with full knowledge of all the facts. So I freely admit I don't know how to resolve it - I just know the potential risks & recommend caution as have other posters. It is disconcerting how many people feel they can give dangerous advice with such confidence, when what is at stake is a woman's livelihood as well as the protection of the OP's employer's interests.

The OP needs to obtain appropriate support IRL and not rely on what her DH, her sister, or posters here (including me), are advising her. Because much of the advice is garbage and if she were to follow it she & her employer would be in serious trouble.

Indirect discrimination occurs when a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) is applied by the employer which is harder for someone with a protected characteristic to comply with. The discrimination can be justified if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

so in this case the PCP is that people attend client sites for meetings. Sometimes this means being alone (but in presumably an open plan office not a sex dungeon) with people of the opposite sex.

is wanting staff to attend client sites a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim? The aim being happy clients and profitable work, I would say yes. Given that certainly not all Muslims will refuse to do it and it is at best her interpretation of the religion.

I'm assuming that this is a fairly high level and important meeting. If the employee turns up at the clients with a random auntie to chaperone her, I suspect the client is going to take her a lot less seriously than he otherwise would. And that isn't going to help her or the company one bit.

Sorry, the advice above is wrong, religious beliefs are one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, so the two year period doesn't apply.,

I'd get legal advice.
Is there a workaround - like the client visiting your premises to do the work?

We’ll have to disagree then because I don’t consider that to be reasonable and if I was asked to be the chaperone I would refuse, and if I was the employer I would refuse as well. It’s is not the role of employers to accommodate backwards belief systems that are incompatible with the norms of British life. That is profoundly unreasonable.

So if someone said "I just asked my sister... (insert sisters experience)..." that would be okay?

That poster didn't ask her husband because he's a man. She asked him because she sees him as having relevant experience and he's in the same room.

Is there a “lone worker“ aspect to this…? If it is someone going alone to a particular place …?

You might not get it, you might think it’s ridiculous, and in western society it is. But this is her deeply held belief system.
Personally, I think that allowing her to take along an unpaid ‘chaperone’ is a reasonable adjustment. It wouldn’t bother me. It makes no difference to the company or the client or the job. It is not costing anyone money, in fact it is potentially saving them some money in allowing the woman to comfortably complete her role.

As a side note: why are so many posters, including the OP, repeating what their DHs advised, as if it is at all relevant? Much of the advice is garbage - but that's not really the point.

Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for my DH point of view; but he is not the Oracle just because he is a man. He doesn't know how to do my job and I don't know how to do his.

To me it just sits rather oddly on a thread where several posters are concerned about the feminist implications of this situation. That & the fact that so many people seem so keen - to the point of being almost gleeful - at the prospect of depriving a woman of her livelihood due to this.

You says she's a good worker and apparently, despite being new, the only person in your team who can manage this task.

It's HER project @JWhipple . So of course it has to be her. The only alternative is that OP does it, as she's been supervising, but that has major ramifications around costing and calendars. And then what happens next time? If this person can't carry her projects to completion she has no future in the company, and she simply won't be able to be given those protects.

A married chaperone? Is this a Jane Austen novel, instead of 21st century Britain?

Just listen to yourself.

Well, as employers can’t ask if their employees are married or single, she’s going to have to get over that.

You says she's a good worker and apparently, despite being new, the only person in your team who can manage this task.
So obviously you talk about sacking her for declining one aspect of her job. FFS.

Is there any way she can do this task without going against her beliefs? Such as having a married chaperone? Did you even speak to her? Or did you just invent this entire scenario to whip up a bunch of bigots on Mumsnet?

Maybe as he's married and so it's allowed in her religion.

Your DH doesn't know what he is talking about. It is not a redundancy situation as this employee's job still exists. If you deprive her of contractual work tasks then force her out on spurious redundancy grounds then you really will risk a religion discrimination case.

Get appropriate advice from HR and employment law experts. Then discuss with the employee with a view to resolving the concerns and finding a workaround if at all possible. Dismiss only as a last resort, with appropriate legal guidance, and only if you can clearly demonstrate that you have done all possible to resolve the matter. That's it.

Just asked my DH (large multinational company where he has lots of colleagues/reportees from every ethnicity and religious backgrounds).. he was stunned as not encountered this in his 30 odd years and stated in this situation he would find her tasks she can do in the short term and manage her out into redundancy pretty damn quick on grounds of being unable to progress and meet performance objectives (after all, professionally she cannot develop if unable to attend meetings with men alone in a role that requires it).

HoppingGreen

Pharmacists can refuse to sell the MAP I believe

That’s bloody outrageous.

Exactly what I was about to write !!!

If the business can’t be run profitably based on her religious requirements, they can dismiss her on the basis she can’t do the job in a way that allows the business to operate.

It is a minefield but so long as the OP follows procedure, it can be done.

It’s if she just charges in and sacks her the way her DH and some people on this thread have suggested that things could go very wrong. She needs to carefully document why it’s not possible to make changes to the job to comply with the request and the fact that makes the job untenable.

There may also need to be some back and forth discussion with the employee (in writing, obviously) to make it clear there have been good faith attempts to address the issue. HR should be able to advise (and if they’ve been get it wrong, it’s not the OP who will be blamed!).

It's very dodgy ground and they'd certainly have to ask everyone rather than just selected candidates in order to get away with it at all, but realistically many employers will just find a reason not to employ the muslim applicant

Illegal and deeply sad, yes, but equally there's no point denying it happens and why that is

If in the longer-term, if the business can't run competitively because of the need for a chaperone/employee being unable to fulfil critical elements of her job, would business be able to get rid of her on cost-cutting redundancy grounds (which could also affect other staff)? Or is that still a complete minefield?

Am wondering if the employee left her old job in a 'jump before you're pushed' situation.

I also feel for future prospective female employees who are devout muslims and who may have no such scruples. All people are individuals, after all, with their own interpretation of certain tenets of faith and 'devout 'does not equal 'perfect'. OP's firm is going to be far less open to employing such a person - even though they might have no objection to being alone with a male client.