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?

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.

Why is it so different? they are beliefs that adults actively choose to follow. They may be passionately and sincerely held and seen as integral to the person's identity, but they are active choices. As such adherents to a certain diet or a certain religion should realise that it will limit their employment opportunities, due to the choices they make.

Religion is a lifestyle choice, not something that is a 'given' such as race, disability or gender.

Yeah, you can't implement this now only to not in the future.

If you are still reading OP, it's a very simple no, backed up with mock rotas, and an explanation that you can't guarantee that there won't be a man on shift due to sickness / holidays / future staff changes / etc.

I would advise against offering a chaperone for the reasons all stated on the thread.

I would also ask her her proposed solutions. Look at the rotas together.

Follow acas flexible working guidelines and you will be fine.

That's an interesting potential piece of case law-someone has a contractual term (either written or established) of having rotas arranged around her to accommodate not working with men, a position is recruited for which would mean no longer being able to accommodate that unless male candidates were discriminated against.

By the way, this is nothing to do with flexible working. Flexible working requests are currently restricted to parents or carers, and that's when a limit of once every 12 months and a set flexible working procedure comes in.

This is not a flexible working request under the flexible working legislation, this is a request for a reasonable adjustment to accommodate a protected characteristic. There is no specific procedure to follow and no limit on how many such requests can be made in a year.

It is a flexible working request, it's just not a statutory right to request it. I would still follow the guidelines as to how to deal with the request too as it's good business practice.

www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/m/9/Handling-requests-to-work-flexibly-in-a-reasonable-manner-an-Acas-guide.pdf

www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/EqualityAct/employees_working_hours.pdf

Compo, it is different because it is a protected characteristic within the law.
The diet you choose to follow is not.

Flowery, would it have to be a concrete yes or no, with it being contracted one way or another?

Would it be possible to offer 'I will try to accommodate as much as poss but cannot guarantee', with regular review dates, with reviews also carried out when necessary (ie maternity leave, new male employees etc)?

It would have to be a concrete decision. There would be nothing stopping the OP making an effort to reduce the shifts with men informally thereafter though.

monica I am not talking about the law, I am aware how the law stands at the moment. I am of the opinion that it shouldn't be a protected characteristic, as it is lifestyle choice.

Thanks slithy.

Compo, it is not a lifestyle choice to those who are believers though.

I'm an atheist, even though I find all religion ridiculous the law does not, and individuals do not.

If you feel that strongly then start an e-petition or something re taking it off the protected list.

What about transgender people compo?

Should they be taken off the protected list because they chose to change sex?

People choose to get pregnant or not. Should that not be protected?

Or bisexual people with same sex partners? After all you could argue that they could choose to be with an opposite sex partner.

ComposHat believe it or not, but the people who sit on industrial tribunal panels are pretty clued in.

They know a vexatious or frivolous litigant when they see one and they often chuck them out at preliminary hearings. That's if they get that far.

However, a tribunal is an expensive and stressful process for any decent employer who takes on a chancer, just as it is for someone who has been wronged by an employer, which is much more common but rarely reported.

Wonder why that is?

So that's why I'm angry at posters who have encouraged the OP to disregard the law, or those who've promoted horror stories and the idea that anyone who goes to a tribunal or has the temerity to ask for a variation in working conditions is a twister on the compo trail.

It makes a really good story to talk about Jedi Knightists. Buried well down in the copy is a paragraph saying: judgement reserved, which is the normal thing with tribunals. After about a month or six weeks they deliver their judgement which hardly ever gets reported because those cases get rejected and that's not such a good story.

I'm going to stick my neck out here, but if you can find a case of a Jedi Warrior or a vegan in an abbatoir who took her employer to a tribunal and won, I'll eat a pig's pizzle while it's still attached to a breathing animal.

Slithy the flexible working procedure and 12 month restriction only applies to statutory requests, which this is not, so saying "follow the guidelines and they can only make one flexible working request every 12 months. Problem solved." is misleading.

And no, a concrete decision isn't necessary. As long as the OP can demonstrate that she'd made reasonable effort to accommodate, then "'I will try to accommodate as much as poss but cannot guarantee' is fine. It's all about the employer being able to demonstrate that they are being reasonable, and trying to accommodate as much as possible is a good way to do that.

monica I find it very difficult to see this as anything other than a life-style choice although the law thinks otherwise.

For all of you who think her request should be accommodated regardless of the inconvenience it will cause her employer and potential impact on her co-workers (including potential loss of flexibility for them)- can you really not understand why other employees might be disgruntled? Do you have no sympathy for the male employees who are being treated as predators? She cannot work alone with them in the shop not because they are nasty or bullies or they've tried anything on with her ; but they are simply men.

I see there was a university case where a male student asked not to be taught in the presence of women but that was refused. If "Sarah" were "Sam" saying he wouldn't work alone with women would you support that too ?

I find it impossible to be comfortable with the sexism in either situation.

There is case law constantly on this type of thing, but on the Jedi Knight thing, the protected characteristic is religion or philosophical belief. Cases have been brought about a range of beliefs, and climate change and being against fox hunting are two that have successfully argued for protection.

The sexism is wrong. But it is the law. I am guessing it would be physically impossible for a male student not to be taught in the presence of woman.

Actually veganism could be a protected characteristic if it was part of an overall coherent worldview. And adjustments would need to be made where reasonable. If someone who was a vegan worked in an abbatoir, you would have to say this was an unraesonable request. But it may be possible for example if a care worker said they didn't want to handle meat, to accomodate that request.

monica but pregnant, bi-sexual or transgendered employees are unlikely to dictate they are unwilling to work with members of only one sex are they? And if they did it would be dismissed out of hand. Why does being sexist become acceptable if it's because your religion tells you to?

Actually, scrub that ComposHat. Can you link to any case where a vegan has ever taken their abattoir employers to an industrial tribunal, let alone won?

Or is this something you've imagined?

monica I find it very difficult to see this as anything other than a life-style choice although the law thinks otherwise.

For all of you who think her request should be accommodated regardless of the inconvenience it will cause her employer and potential impact on her co-workers (including potential loss of flexibility for them)- can you really not understand why other employees might be disgruntled? Do you have no sympathy for the male employees who are being treated as predators? She cannot work alone with them in the shop not because they are nasty or bullies or they've tried anything on with her ; but they are simply men.

I see there was a university case where a male student asked not to be taught in the presence of women but that was refused. If "Sarah" were "Sam" saying he wouldn't work alone with women would you support that too ?

I find it impossible to be comfortable with the sexism in either situation.

sorry double post. Although my other post should day "unlikely to dictate they are willing only to work with members of one sex"

flowery I mean follow the guidelines as in the leaflet I posted up thread - holding meetings, formal response on paper, that sort of thing. Witnessed note taking. Protect both parties. Sorry I wasn't clear.

I would also say that if it's a no, then a formal concrete no backed up with evidence is far safer for the OP then a "we will try".

"For all of you who think her request should be accommodated regardless of the inconvenience it will cause her employer and potential impact on her co-workers"

I genuinely can't see a single post making that argument.

flowery I believe you're legally qualified and I'm not. So I'm not being cheeky.

But in the case of Jedi Knights or any other frivolous litigant, do you not have to show some kind of coherent background? Otherwise you risk the panel rejecting it; because they're not idiots.

When I was in that situation, that's what my solicitor told me.