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

What would be the circumstances for segregating sexes or chaperoning women in 21st century Britain workplaces that you would find acceptable? What could be considered a “reasonable” adjustment?

As I said upthread, I don’t believe that sex segregation is acceptable or that chaperones are reasonable on the basis of religion - just to explain where I am on this.

It depends on the circumstances and whether reasonable adjustments can be made.

Then she shouldn't take a job where that is needed

Already hard for anyone with a " foreign" name, appearance or religion to get a job. I have all 3.
Bringing religion to the workplace makes it harder.

FWIW, my personal opinion is that religion shouldn't be a protected characteristic, but shouldn't be discriminated against either 🤷🏼‍♀️

Same as any other lifestyle choice. It can't trump what isn't a choice, surely ?

This is where the whole gender wars is centred. You can choose your gender (all of us have). You can't choose your sex.

That is pretty much where the Eqaility Act is, though. Direct Discrimination is quite specific I believe. So, for example, you can’t refuse someone good or a service in the basis of PCs. That’s not what’s happening here, this woman was employed. I don’t think her religion should protect her from the sack if her practice of it precludes her from doing the job she’s contracted to do.

Oh gosh no of course not, I meant that the employee surely chooses a job they can do reasonably.. obviously completely different scenario if someone suffered a disability after taking the employment!
FWIW, my personal opinion is that religion shouldn't be a protected characteristic, but shouldn't be discriminated against either 🤷🏼‍♀️ If you choose to be something that's going to affect your ability to do a job, totally on you - not the employer!

Do you disagree with “it’s not culturally acceptable to refuse to meet with the opposite sex in your professional role in the UK”?

OP, hope you can find a legal way through this because I feel you have been mislead during interview by this person.

In a world with more cameras than people, I find it odd that interviews aren't recorded. Maybe they should be ? Just in case someone "forgets" that someone was clearly stated in an interview and then acts all surprised when it happens.

(In my last year at Uni, our Business Studies module had us practising mock interviews that were videotaped. Nerdy types needing a little extra instruction in the social interaction scene than most. That was mid 80s.).

I'm all for supporting people with their choices/beliefs/disabilities,

They aren't all equal though. Unless you are suggesting people choose to be disabled ? Suppose a blind employee was told they couldn't bring their assistance dog in because it was against a colleagues choice of religion ? Which isn't too contrived. There have been cases where taxi drivers have refused to carry passengers with guide dogs due to religion. (And I admit in advance that's not an employer-employee situation, but a customer-service provider one).

As I understand it, she has no intention of charging the client more for a chaperone - Op was stating that this would be the only way to preserve the profit on the job. I suspect if P goes to the meeting she will likely have to charge at the same rate as the employee who is refusing to attend, so is already risking that loss, and is likely bound to do so because she has costed - and quoted a fee to the client - based on being able to send this employee.

Going forward, it means she cannot price jobs competitively as she now has to allow for this person being unavailable to do many client facing site visits and meetings - it puts her business and risk and may lose her clients.

OP, hope you can find a legal way through this because I feel you have been mislead during interview by this person.

As an HR Director with Jewish heritage, I disagree with every aspect of this post.

I'd love to hear an update OP when you've spoken to HR/lawyers, just out of pure interest!
I'm all for supporting people with their choices/beliefs/disabilities, but I also think the onus is on the individual to take a role that doesn't need adjusting from the get-go! How many paraplegic hod carriers/firmen/paramedics are there? Extreme example i know, but my point is they wouldn't apply for a job they couldn't do, so why should religion be any different? Surely a career in a predominantly female setting would be better if you're going to allow this aspect of your religion to affect your career and wider business? Genuinely intrigued!

I think you'd fall foul of discrimination laws if you charged the client more because you needed to send a chaperone with her. You'd be charging them more because they're men, or perhaps indirect descrimination against them because of someone else's religion. Those are costs your company would have to suck up as your reasonable adjustments of employing her.

You have to tread very carefully here. You even thinking about charging the client more indicates your company needs a much increased level of basic equality and diversity training.

I worked for decades in a town with a very high percentage of Muslims. 70% of our pupils were Muslim, and many of my colleagues, particularly TAs, were Muslim.
Every single one of my colleagues would be alone with a male teacher or TA at some point. It was never an issue, nor did it ever cross my mind that it could be.

My TAs would be pretty annoyed to not be considered devout. Based on my experience, those Muslim women who will not be alone with a man at work, must be a tiny minority of exceptionally devout Muslims.

Some of us don't care what Islam says about this matter.

As is our right - not just choice. Right.

Some of us don't care what Islam says about this matter. We also dont believe Islam should have any influence over it. We care about equality in the workplace not outdated or misogynistic restrictive working practices. We have enough problems with equality without religious bad actors of any denomination restricting our movements.

Do this, be as gracious as possible in offering alternatives. Record the efforts you've made. Give her absolutely no come back.

Then sack her within the two year period because 'it's not working out'.

No one would put up with a Christian or a Jewish person taking a job they know they're cannot perform.

It's not culturally acceptable to refuse to meet with the opposite sex in your professional role in the UK. Neither should it be, it's as bad as the Muslim man that would not shake hands with women. Discrimination on the basis of his made up sky fairy.

It's this kind of shit, the erosion of Western liberal values that is leading to the rise of the right. It's why the USA has Trump.

I wouldn't move to Saudi and walk round eating a bacon sarnie whilst wearing a bikini top. They have strong boundaries about what they consider acceptable. The UK needs to work on healthy boundaries before we end up with Farage in charge.

This is where 'reasonable' is relevant. If it means the business can't be competitive and is losing contracts and business because its financially unsustainable and it's damaging client relationships, then actually there maybe grounds to say the request can't be met and there's reasonable grounds to turn in down and that they will have to adjust the job role in other ways but that may mean she can't carry out the role she was hired for.

It's definitely one for lawyers.

I’m surprised at some of the responses here, a devout Muslim woman is not allowed to spend time alone in the. Company of just men.

The thing is, you can chose how devout you are. You can't chose being a man. Or a woman. (Well not in theory).

I’m surprised at some of the responses here, a devout Muslim woman is not allowed to spend time alone in the. Company of just men.

i thought this was widely understood,

i think if there is an alternative for this you should try to accommodate her, and as some PP have suggested confirm the law in this regard with your HR department.

The unplalatable truth though, is that there are protected charateristics and "protected charateristics"

Protected Charateristics:
Age,
Sex,
Disability,
Sexual Orientation,
Nationality ("race" whatever that is)

"Protected Charateristics:"
Gender (inc Gender reassignment),
Religion,
Nationality ("race" whatever that is) (not a mistake 😀),
Pregnancy,
Marital Status

Now that isn't a legal list, obviously. It's more a field spotters guide. But some will have spotted why there are two categories (feel free to comment, not that you need my permission 😆) and how easy it is to set up a perpetual struggle between them, were one so inclined.

A previous poster commented that there is a need to radically overhaul the equalities act. Personally I'd be happy to see what we have actually implemented. But any update should really reflect the reality of the above. Which I would be the first to admit is up for discussion and not a settled view.

A miscevious person - or an "AI" bot in training - could have hours of fun creating all sorts of plausible scenarious where there is a "Battle of the Characteristics". In fact I might do that for fun. 😀

Hope you're not referring to me there....

Having a protected characteristic is a shield against discrimination. It does not mean she doesn't have to perform reasonable duties as part of her job that any other employee would also be expected to undertake.

The irony is those supporting it will seriously consider themselves to be ‘progressive’ and ‘anti sexism’