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 had a junior employee seconded to me at a previous place of employment who made a similar request for a similar reason. She needed to get some different experience but what she'd have got with me involved working directly with external bodies. I suggested she take a chaperone (it wouldn't have looked massively odd though we did need to look sane to these bodies but the chaperone could have been her "lift" for example).
She declined and asked another colleague to second on their project (internal, with larger mixed groups) instead. I found her attitude quite irritating actually as she made other excuses why she couldn't work on my project, which I happen to know are cultural not religious, she was expecting me to change the project for her (this is slightly possible with this kind of experience-gaining project but when it gets too distant from my supervisory expertise she could just as well move to a different project).

This was in London, by the way.

Chunderella - Then the legislation could simply have said that the Cof E could not be forced to perform gay marriages, rather than expressly forbid it. I think they did it because there was a fear that some ministers might have ignored what their bishops said, and went ahead and performed gay marriages anyway. Personally I don't know why anyone who is gay has anything to do with a church that obviously hates them so much.

Long and short of it is that the CoE is the established church. Islam is not. Nobody would go to an Islamic country and expect to have paid holiday on Good Friday.

I am not CoE myself but respect its position.

I agree that gay marriage is disestablishing the Church of England.

I'm not a member of the Church of England.

I married in a civil ceremony and I don't understand why anyone except a gay Christian would want his or her union to be accepted in a church. Or a gay person of any other faith in her appropriate place of worship.

I think it's yet another thing that Dave hasn't really thought through.

flowerythere were posters last night such as Russian blue and someone else who were veering that way. There was mention that what the other employees might make of this was irrelevant; several posters have said what the might feel being treated this way is irrelevant.

And would you support "Sam" refusing to work with a female employee?

Sorry, I don't mean a gay Christian. I mean a Christian.

I don't understand why anyone who doesn't espouse the faith should marry in a religious establishment. And that goes for any faith.

I find it weird that as a Christian you have the right to be married in your parish church but as a baby you don't have the right to be baptised there.

Okay, but the church is allowed legally to discriminate against gay people. I think religious organisations should not have exemptiosn from equality legislation. Which would mean that thsi women would be told sorry but you do have to work alone with men, and the church would be told sorry, if you want to marry people legally you need to allow gay people to marry.

limited you seem to have utterly misconstrued what I am saying. I am using the case of a vegan in an abattoir as a hypothetical example, which I think illustrates the absurdity of this woman's position. Apply for and accept a position in a mixes sex working environment and then within a short order demand a single sex working environment.

I find it weird that as a Christian you have the right to be married in your parish church but as a baby you don't have the right to be baptised there.

Marriage is a legal matter - everyone who is legally entitled to be married can be. Part of the quid quo pro of being the state church is that the CofE is obliged to provide this service to anyone who wants it in their parish. Baptism on the other hand is a purely religious matter, with no legal status.

This is difficult, I am Muslim, and for me if it is a shop and open to the public, she is not strictly speaking alone with a man in a problematic way. Though I don't imagine you want to enter into discussions about that with her, as it's up to her I suppose the way she wants to interpret things.
It sounds like it would be difficult for you to fulfil this request without it impacting quite heavily on the rest of the staff and your general considerations.

Caitlin, not once have I suggested that the request should be granted regardless of inconvenience to other colleagues.

Her request is just that - a request. Not a demand.

Her request should be assessed to see if reasonable adjustment can be made.

If any adjustments would have a detrimental affect on other members of staff, then they are not 'reasonable'.

As for other members of staff feeling hard done by, why?
They wouldn't know anything about it.

I find her request offensive.

I was not aware that she had demanded anything, let alone a single sex working environment.

But don't let facts get in the way of hyperbole!

Caitlin, I also didn't suggest that all those other protected groups would refuse to work with a man.

Those situations described by myself and Grennie were 'chosen' situations. A poster had said that religion is a choice, therefore shouldn't be a protected characteristic - we pointed out other examples.

Nothing to do with working with a man.

I've only read the first 300 posts so not sure if this has been mentioned since, but what would happen if the op wS to go along with this then two more female members of staff left and she needed to interview. Would she need to discriminate against the applicants who were men in order to continue to accommodate this member of staff? What if the male applicants were the most qualified for the job? What would the legal position be on that if it had been deemed reasonable for the op to accommodate 'Sarah's' request?

To ask not to work with certain people alone due to their sex is discriminating against those people

You would hire the best person for the job.

You have not promised never to employ another man, just to try and enable her to not be working with only men. You would still try to make that work, but only as far as is 'reasonable'.

"She is trying to live according to her religion as far as she can."

Except that her religion doesn't say anything about never being alone with a man in a shop. It doesn't even say anything about never being alone with a man in a closed private room.

I worked for years in a country with a 99% Muslim population. There was none of this 'can't be alone with a man at any time in the shop I'm working' silliness.

I'm at posts saying this employee should be accommodated.

But if it's difficult rota wise now then 2 less women and 2 more men would surely tip the balance towards impossible. If that was to happen just after agreeing to it I wonder if Sarah would then have any comeback.

Monicalewinsky - I suppose I can see situations in which accommodating this lady's request might negatively impact her male colleagues, if, for example, making sure she's not alone with one of them means that they get the worst shifts or a more restricted or bitty shift pattern. Without seeing the rota, and knowing what hours/days each of the staff work, I can't say for sure that that is the case, but equally we can't say for sure that this isn't the case either.

The other staff might not mind, but they might feel that she is getting her shifts sorted out first, and everyone else is having to fit in around them, and people might feel that is not fair. It could look like she is getting special treatment, and that could cause resentment.

I could see how some men might feel insulted - as if 'Sarah' doesn't trust them not to behave I appropriately towards her - that could also cause resentment in the workplace.

If it becomes impossible to achieve then it is no longer 'reasonable'.

At the point it becomes impossible, you revisit things with the employee and explain that it is no longer possible to accommodate her request.
I would imagine that you are legally in the clear because you have done your best.

(Providing you didn't just hire men to force Sarah out, because I think that might be constructive dismissal - I am it sure though)

SDTG - If it is not possible without treating men worse e.g. giving them more weekend shifts, then you say no.

Lesbains and gay people are expected to work alongside people who think being gay is wrong. If they can manage it, then men can manage to work aside a Muslim woman who doesnt want to be alone with a man.

SDTG I see what you mean, but if her request was impacting negatively, it would not fall in the 'reasonable adjustments' bracket. In which case you would say, "sorry Sarah but it's just not possible - I cannot find a way to make it workable".

The other employees should not know that the request was made because that should be between Sarah and the manager, it is nothing to do with anyone else.