To not accommodate a request by a female Muslim never to be in work "alone" with any male colleague?

[LibertyPrints]

"Sarah" has worked with our company since December. We have 12 staff (some of whom are part time) across 2 sites. All staff work between the 2 sites. They are retail outlets.

Sarah is Muslim and has recently contacted me to ask if I can ensure she is not ever scheduled to be alone with any male colleague at either site stating this is to do with her religious beliefs.

The manager is male and 3 staff are male. Different staff have different skill levels and they are scheduled where they are best utilised on any given day/week and so that all shifts are pretty equally shared out. It is not practical to agree to this.

For clarity I have no issue with making adjustments for her where I can. For example she asked at interview if she could reduce her lunch hour by varying amounts and then take that extra time out when she wanted to pray at varying times of the day. Even though we don't normally allow breaks to be taken in this way I agreed willingly.

I feel really awkward saying no but it's really far from ideal. AIBU to think if she can't expect this from us?

Grennie

I work in a environment where it is perfectly legal to not employ men and nobody to my knowledge has ever got all excited about it and started yelling discrimination

when my working colleague was fasting during Ramadan we HAD to work out our hours around her

Why was that katmat3? I worked with a male Muslim who was fasting for Ramadan. I wouldn't have noticed except that someone mentioned it in passing.

Fasting doesn't need time off, so I'm a bit confused as to what you were required to do.

I'm Catholic too. Christmas isn't as big a deal as Easter - particularly Good Friday. But maybe it's different where you come from, though my experience of Catholicism is that that pecking order of Holy days is universal.

Do tell. It's always fascinating to hear of the practices of different cultures, don't you find?

BTW like you, I've worked them all.

I don't work on christmas day but right up to the wire. I actually work for the CofE so around the main relgious celebrations are my busiest times! And yes, there are a few christians around the office!

No all the Muslims I've worked woyh have fasted and worked as normal without any problems.

I have relatives who do the full no food no drink fasting and go to work normally and don't have time off. Again, its probably more personal/cultural/regional as to your observance.

FOr the posters who do know their employment law - at what point can an employer get rid of someone who is a whiny PITA playing the religion card to get out of doing his/her share of the work? If you have one, relatively new member of staff who is making request after request to the point that it's impacting on the work of the others and pissing them off as the whiner is getting visible special treatment, how can you get rid of him/her without getting sued?

SGB - You can't get rid of someone for using their legal rights. You make reasonable adjustments and turn down requests that are not reasonable under the law.

TBH your comment reminds me of people who complain about women going off on yet another maternity leave.

SGB like most people on this thread I'm not an employment lawyer but why should I let that stop me putting in my two penn'orth?

So in answer to your question I'd say an employer should be stopped from getting rid of a whiny PITA who is a woman with any kind of alternative lifestyle that isn't hurting anyone but who is just requesting accommodation.

Its hard to 'get rid of' someone unless the employer is porepared to either make them redundant or what is effectively unfair dismissal/disciplinary procedure. Whereas an employee can vote with their feet and quit, an employer can't say 'we hate you working here, you don't fit in, are too whingey, etc, shove off!'.

I have managed people who were, well a bit 'tricky', and I found that I worked really hard to keep them motivated and happy, and manager their expectations of their bizarre requests. Its not easy, and I wouldn't want to manage staff again!

If you discriminate against a protected characteristic - it's automatically unfair discrimination regardless of the length of service. And hugely punitive financially and reputationally. They don't even need to be employed if they feel they were discriminated against at interview.

As an employer, if you can make reasonable adjustments - you MUST make them. Doesn't matter if you think religion is holy poky mumble jumble. Arranging shifts is not difficult, guaranteeing shifts may well be but the employer here needs to show why she can't accommodate this request.

nicename it is quite easy of 'get rid of someone' as long as you follow employment law. The people who fall foul of it haven't followed the rules.

Why has this all of a sudden come up now and not in the first 4 months of employment?

Why is this suddenly a problem and not at interview or at any time in the last 4 months?

Not if they are a pain in the backside or whingey!

And as an employer, generally if you accommodate employees where you can and explain when and why you can't, they understand it.

This woman may be so grateful to work for a forward thinking, diverse company that she might just turn out to be their best employee. Managing people isn't easy but often, with small businesses, you get back what you put in regardless of whether it's because you're compelled by legislation or ethics.

Lots of people are a pita, doesnt give you a reason to sack them.

Perhaps she's been wondering if she could ask.

Why hasn't this thread been deleted as per the OP's last post.

I think the people assuming there may be an issue if she is refused her request are people who have managed or employed staff. Everyone I know who has done so have been threatened with allsorts by aggrieved employees/potenial/ex employees who haven't had things go their way/done their way. There are some seriously odd/entitled people out there.

It's not outlandish to warn any employer that if a member of staff makes a request that if they don't follow policy or guidelines, they may end up with an official complaint as a refusal may offend.

At the shop round the corner from me a few months ago they had a pregnant employee who was often struggling with mobility .

One day I asked her why she was not sitting down behind the counter to be told she was not allowed her doctor had written to her employer asking if a chair could be used on occasions through out the day.

Despite a 9 hour shift she was not allowed to sit down other than on her half hour lunch break just incase none pregnant employees thought she was getting preferential treatment.

She genuinely did not realise she was perfectly entitled to have reasonable accommodations considered.

Not if they are a pain in the backside or whingey!

Dismissing someone on those grounds would break employment law, such as it is.

However, if you follow the rules it can easily be done. The problem is when people don't follow the rules because they're lazy or think they can go off-piste, which many people on this thread have done.

I had a dispute with a company because they made me redundant, rather than the post. The clearest breach of employment law that you can think of.

On one particularly bad day I ranted at my solicitor about them ‘not being able to just get rid of people’.

He said: ‘yes they can. And if I’d have been working for them you’d have been gone and stayed gone. But I’m working for you. So let’s calm down, stop talking about irrelevancies and discuss the settlement for unfair dismissal, age discrimination, hurt feelings and let’s give sex discrimination a whirl while we’re at it...’

I think I loved him from that moment. We’re on Linked In and whenever anyone gets shafted at work I refer them to him.

limited - He was right that companies can make the post redundant. In fact councils do this all the time - have reorganisations to get rid of those they no longer want around. Everyone knows that is what is happening, proving it can be very different.

grennie I know. Luckily my employers fucked up. Or unluckily really. I'd rather not have gone through it. I'd worked there happily and would have continued to have done so and and I believe I was a good employee.

Unfortunately a new boss decided to take against me - new broom and all that.

We proved age, which as I know you know is another protected characteristic, and for very good reason. And without limit to settlement. Good. We all get old. The alternative doesn't bear thinking about.

I'm still amazed by the people on this thread who are objecting to protection on religious grounds and tritely comparing it to being a vegan working in an abattoir or claiming to be a Jedi Knight.

It's somewhat protected but not that much once you get to a tribunal. There is a sliding scale and both sides have to show reasonableness.

Anyway, follow the rules and you'll be okay.

Dismissing someone for making repeated requests is immoral and illegal.

However, follow the guidelines and they can only make one flexible working request every 12 months. Problem solved.

No it wont. You employ the men and tell her you can no longer accomodate her request. Circumstances change. And you must employ the best person for the job.

grennie - the problem is that if the employee is allowed to do something for an extended period, it becomes 'custom and practice' that may be an unwritten but legally enforceable extension to the employment contract. It is unwise to allow an employee an extended privilege that may not be available permanently.