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?

"If you request part time work after mat leave for example, when you were employed full time, then you have to show how the change won't be detrimental to the business. The onus is on the employee to establish that because they are the ones wishing to alter the terms under which they were employed."

I agree with this. We have a flexible employment policy at work but it's not just for the staff to demand and it be accomodated - you have to set out not just why but also how your and your colleagues work would not be compromised or even set out how it would be beneficial to all.

Lots of staff have needs but it's very irritating to any manager to be confronted with needs and have to adjust things. It's better as a member of staff to present an issue with a few solutions. More collaborative.

There is an awful lot of misleading "advice" on this thread.

"Injury to Feelings" is not a stand-alone claim. It is an element of the compensatory award which is considered by a Tribunal AFTER a claim for discrimination has succeeded.

The law has changed regarding Employment Tribunal claims. All claims have to go through mediation first. If the claim goes ahead after that a complex claim like discrimination will require a Pre-Hearing Review, before a hearing date is set . It usually takes several months at least.

It also costs something like £1,200 to lodge a complex claim, that's without your legal costs, and the risk of losing and having to pay the employer's costs.

Tribunals never were the cosy and informal process people seem to think. They are even tougher now. It is a Court, and for a discrimination case Employers are usually represented by Counsel.

It's a costly, stressful and difficult process and the law is now extremely complex.

The ACAS Helpline is your friend.

Olgaga Don't get me started on how difficult it is for a successful employer to get an order for costs. It is always said that the risk of costs would deter the bringing of meritorious cases, but the present rule deters SMEs from defending unmeritorious ones.

Tribunals never were the cosy and informal process people seem to think. They are even tougher now. It is a Court, and for a discrimination case Employers are usually represented by Counsel.

It's a costly, stressful and difficult process and the law is now extremely complex.

This ^. And still people run away with the idea that it's free money for chancers

nicename when employers settle on the tribunal doorstep after dragging you to hell and back it's not because you're a big bully who's shafted them with PC nonsense.

It's usually because they know they're in the wrong and that their own vastly well-funded big bully tactics to get you to drop it didn't work.

Then they get you to sign a compromise agreement in return for what can never be adequate recompense for the misery they've put you through now matter how much money it is, so no one knows what they've done. Because it wouldn't do for anyone else they've shafted to get ideas, would it...

"Injury to Feelings" is not a stand-alone claim. It is an element of the compensatory award which is considered by a Tribunal AFTER a claim for discrimination has succeeded.

And this ^ too. It can form part of deal for not going to a tribunal and is listed as such on your settlement. It is recognition of their wrong-doing. No one makes that admission lightly.

Limited - in the case my sister mentioned to me it really was a load of baloney.

Later she found out that there was a core group of workers who were notorious for bringing cases of unfair practise against their employers, who had decided long ago just to roll over and at the first snif of a complaint would throw money at it. It's not a business she works for but a service provided by the US armed forces.

Now, my sister is 'mrs right on', and she is very experienced and very fair. When she's had to back someone up against unfairness, she comes out fighting.

I've seen complaints from both sides of the fence and yes, I've seen genuine ones, but far more malicious ones looking for revenge or a payout.

In fact, I've known far more people, me included, who have just though 'fuck it, I am well out of it' and left jobs rather than get into a complaint procedure.

I agree with this People need to be guided by what is reasonable, fair and above all respectful to co-workers.

And, while no system is perfect, I assume that tribunals etc would also look at what is reasonable, fair and workable for a business.

As PP said it's a balance between the rights & responsibilities of the employee and what is available in law and workable for the business.

Asking for something may be reasonable - it may also be chancing it - but asking in and of itself is not cause for immediate worry.

We all know of people in rl who chance their arm but that doesn't mean everyone is out to do that so I believe it's right to look at a request before getting so defensive that your business is damaged - not because someone asked for accommodations - but because assumptions got in the way of reasonable consideration.

X posted with nice there - wouldn't your experience suggest that the balance of 'bogus' claims Vs genuine one might be affect by people choosing not to pursue claims even when genuine

Maybe the reasonable folk are the ones to concede - whether that be an employer or an employee, so it might happen that the cases are skewed because of that?

Can I suggest there may be a bit of confusion over what's allowable at a tribunal and what someone may claim/demand as a condition of avoiding a tribunal?

I accept that they may be a difficult process now, but can't really say as I've never been through one. As I said, I've been threatened several times by folks hoping for a payout as the price of avoiding a case, but luckily these were very obvious try-ons and easily deflected. I obviously dont know if the claimants had considered the possible cost to themselves, but rather doubt it; it appeared they'd just identified a supposed "opportunity" and grabbed it greedily

That's surely the point that so many posters are making: acting reasonably and taking proper advice should (hopefully!!) avoid ever having to go through a tribunal at all ...

nicename I note your account of your sister's experience but I'm not going to accept it.

I have direct experience of this. You don't. You're talking about your sister. I simply do not believe that she hasn't handled a single valid case - which you've now said is a single case or some kind of conspiracy.

I do accept that some people try it on. Or think about trying it on. But as Olgaga says they are weeded out by the process that has become even tougher in recent years.

The people who sit on industrial tribunals aren't idiots. They are, however, fair. To both sides. That's why they sometimes rule against petitioners. Those cases are overwhelmingly reported. The number of cases where the employer has been judged to have shafted the employee don't get nearly as much coverage.

I refer you to this one. Now can you tell me why that wasn't widely reported?

And can you imagine what kind of shit that person had to deal with in order to get that kind of payout?

"Youare" perhaps not, which is why forums like this one (though perhaps not AIBU) are invaluable.

I found that whenever I needed anything clarifying, using acas literature and ringing them was very useful, both as an employer and employee.

Im sure OP will find the links posted helpful, and will seek further advice in a more appropriate place if needed.

Sorry, meant to bold your name there youare

In my sisters case, the one group of women within the organisation are notorious for this. They bring a grievance and push for payout. Remember, this is in the states where the culture is to sue.

I didn't say that she hadn't handled a valid case - she has. In the case of this one group, they are very active and have brought numerous complaints against their employer.

I have had direct experience of malicious complaints going up to trial. The complainant had nothing to lose and it was extremely stressful, bloody awful really. He treated it like a game.

nicename

The complainant had nothing to lose

That's the point. No risk of costs and until recently no fee to issue. The fee now set is too high but there's nothing wrong with the principle - you have to pay a fee in courts.

As for costs: the loser should pay and the employer should be entitled to have the case stayed until the employee has taken out insurance to cover the liability - the premium to be added to the compensation if the claim succeeds.

Has anyone figured out yet why this employee hasn't mentioned anything about being alone with a male employee in the first 4 months of her employment?

I've been wondering if she was perhaps under the impression that she was on some kind of 3 month trial period during which she could be 'let go'. I believe some companies operate a trial or probation period like this? (maybe I'm wrong though). Once the time was up she could have felt more confident about revealing previously unmentioned 'working preferences'. If that's the case then she has been very deceitful and quite frankly if she can manage for 3/4 months then it's not such a big deal to her.
I'm only speculating that as a possible answer to the above question though. There may be another reason why she waited 4 months to mention it but I'm afraid nothing I can think of puts her in a very good light.

Possibly at the interview she didn't think it would be an issue for her but has realised it is.
I can't begin to imagine the process that leads to thinking the way she does, but she does and there we have it. She may have tried to cope but it's not working for her.

I don't think I would ask in the space of 4 months to have my terms varied 3 times but possibly she is finding a working environment and work generally more challenging than she expected.

In the case of this one group, they are very active and have brought numerous complaints against their employer.

Christ Almighty, what's their nickname: The Untouchables? If they're so notorious that you know all about it, why isn't it being brought to the attention of the court? Surely you're not suggesting that US lawyers are timid?

Actually, something else has occurred to me. Some posters have speculated that perhaps she is asking due to pressure being put on her from her husband or more devout relatives.
Given that she obviously wants to work (she must have come across quite well at interview and seemed keen at that time) and has possibly gone against family wishes to apply for a job, is there a chance she is secretly hoping her requests won't be granted? Then she can go home and say "well I asked, they said no" and it won't be her 'fault' iyswim. I realise the OP can't be expected to be a mind-reader and has to take the request at face value but I know a lot of muslim girls try to be more 'western' when out of sight of their families.

Cote

Guess she could have a shift in her beliefs.

A shift in her beliefs just after her probation period at her new job finished, that was good timing....

Shift towards what?

Either something is a religious necessity (in which case, she should have said it from the start and wouldn't tolerate its absence for 4 months) or it's a lifestyle choice (and workplace should not be expected to accommodate it).

An awful lot of posts on here since I posted in the early stages. Interesting that the OP has never come back! No doubt people will be up in arms at my next statement and tell me I'm talking nonsense but I think that threads like these just go to show what a lot of hostility and misunderstanding there is towards Muslims an Islam in general which is a real shame.

I would imagine Sarah is a fairly reasonable person who just made, in my eyes, a fairly reasonable request and had no intention to sue the OP and all the rest of it. By the way, a Muslim man could easily make a request not to work alone with a female.

As for the poster KatMat something or other who spent a good few posts telling us all how unreasonable and ridiculous the whole thing is then went on to tell us about how the whole of her team had to work around the hours of a fasting colleague. Where did she disappear to? What exactly did you have to do? Did you all have to fast as well? Did you have to wake up early and start work early and finish to be home in time to break the fast? Come on!!! Nowhere does it say that a fasting person should alter their work schedule. In fact, you will get more reward for fasting if you do continue as normal instead of lying around in bed waiting for the fast to end. I think, really, you made it up or twisted it quite a lot to suit your argument. Which is basically that you don't agree because its a set of beliefs which you find strange. Forgive me if I'm wrong.

Some people laughed when I suggested that Sarah had only just become brave enough to make the request. If I was going for a new job I certainly wouldn't be making lots of requests at the interview but perhaps once I had become more at ease and felt welcomed by the employee I might make a request.

I don't necessarily think Sarah's beliefs have shifted. It may be she thought she could mentally accommodate the accommodation as it were but she can't. Although equally I can't imagine when I was employee requesting 3 changes of my terms in such a short period unless there had been a radical, unforeseen and irreversible changes in my personal circumstances.

Russian nothing you say persuades me the sexism in Sarah's request is reasonable. I don't mean "reasonable" in the sense that the law is such that Sarah's employer will have to give it consideration but "reasonable" in the context of the treatment of the sexes in a western, liberal, secular, European democracy, which is what we live in in the UK.

You will say but then under that society we have to give Sarah her choice. Maybe we do but as far as I'm concerned her choice is incompatible with the concept there should not be gender based discrimination except for very good reasons such as medical procedures (Actually I've never ever asked to be seen only by female staff)

This is a concept which has been discussed widely in The Netherlands in the context of immigration as being asked to "tolerate the intolerable" At its most simplistic level if you are an immigrant from an oppressive regime it's a bit much to move to one of the most open, liberal, laid back and sexually enlightened countries in the world and then criticise it for being that way. That is an aside by the way. I know we're not talking about immigration here.

I mentioned that there is a ranking of protected characteristics and as far as I'm concerned if faith causes sexism faith takes second place.

This has nothing to do with being anti-Muslim. I'd say the same about anyone promoting sexist views.

"If I was going for a new job I certainly wouldn't be making lots of requests at the interview but perhaps once I had become more at ease and felt welcomed by the employee I might make a request."

Sure, if it's about coffee breaks or something similar.

If the request is about something that is absolutely essential to you, a 'must' wrt your religious faith, you should have brought it up at your interview and/or not tolerated months of it at work.