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?

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

Probationary periods are completely meaningless. She has no more rights the day after probation is completed than the day before.

Anyway, protection against discrimination because of a protected characteristic starts from day one.

Yes, Flowery, but Sarah might not have known that.

Of course an unreasonable and unfulfillable request is no better for being made after probation. This may well be one especailly if she wants a chaperone around.

Caitlin - You are assuming this woman is an immigrant. Many Muslims have been born in this country, they are British. Indeed many Muslims born in this country are more devout than their immigrant parents or grandparents.

Personally I think religion should have no exemption from other equality laws. But I can't see that happening in the near future. It would mean female Bishops, church schools not allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion, and gay people being allowed to get married in church. Religions have a lot of protection in this country that I think is unjust.

greenwriter I suggest you re-read my post. I absolutely did not suggest Sarah is an immigrant. Quite the contrary.

It would have been far better if this was sorted out at the interview and the question asked then about working arrangements instead of leaving this request for 4 months, why did she leave it for 4 months? Why did she not ask if she would be working with men alone at the interview if it was going to be an issue for her? That would have surely been honest and transparent

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

I am of the opinion that it should have been mentioned at interview stage, HOWEVER i can understand why she didn't. It is for the same reason that women don't mention at interview stage their plans for getting pregnant and having children - NOBODY WOULD EMPLOY THEM BECAUSE OF THE EXTRA EXPENSE AND HASSLE. Yet a woman, once she's completed the minimum service period, can assert her lifestyle choice to have children and the workplace HAS to accomodate for that no matter how unfair and discriminatory it is on everyone else and even the law protects her lifestyle choice. So that kind of discrimination is ok.

i know many of you will disagree but this whole thing stinks of white priviledge.

Only on MN do I come across this George Washingtonesque aversion to telling a lie, or concealing the truth.

Maybe I mingle in a den of thieves...Or maybe I tell the truth here; but not in interviews...

That's all very well, Twizzleship, but there's still the very valid point which CoteDAzur made ... if this is simply the employee's personal preference that's one thing; if it's an absolute must because of her faith, then it defies logic that she could have left it for 4 months, whatever the motivation

Shame you had to drag the "white privilege" thing into it, though, especially as many posts seem to suggest the objections would be just the same whatever the religion; several have even suggested that NO religion should have protected status, which happens to be my own view too. Islam has been discussed here because that's what gave rise to this particular request, but personally I believe the obligation to be reasonable applies to everyone. I can't believe I'm alone in that ...

We also don't know that Sarah is not white.

It may well be pressure from her family or husband rather than her. Perhaps they didn't realise her job meant occasionally being alone with a male. There could be plenty of reasons why she didn't ask at the beginning. It would take a brave candidate to state at interview that she would require shifts to be organised around her, so I think not doing that is understandable if inconvenient.

It would take a brave candidate to state at interview that she would require shifts to be organised around her, so I think not doing that is understandable if inconvenient

True enough, Flowery - but then, if a candidate chooses to keep back important information, they can hardly complain about any consequences which follow from that choice

"if a candidate chooses to keep back important information, they can hardly complain about any consequences which follow from that choice"

Would you say the same about a woman who didn't reveal a pregnancy at interview and then required maternity leave, maternity pay, time off for appointments, adjustments to her role for health and safety reason?

All the OP is required to do is demonstrate that she has considered the request properly and make adjustments only if reasonably practicable. The obligations on the employer of a pregnant woman are much harsher. Would discrimination against a pregnant woman be something she couldn't complain about if she didn't mention it?

Would you say the same about a woman who didn't reveal a pregnancy at interview and then required maternity leave, maternity pay, time off for appointments, adjustments to her role for health and safety reason?

Yes, I certainly would. I naturally have no problem with honouring employees' rights and have consistently done so as the law (and common decency) requires. In return, I also expect employees to be honest and reasonable

In the only pregnancy related claim I've personally been close to, the lady concerned unfortunately bragged once too often - and to the wrong person - about how clever and calculating she'd been by keeping back information in just this way. As a result she was apparently advised by her union that she'd probably blown her own case and she left the company very soon afterwards

As I've said so often, it's usually much simpler to just be honest in the first place ...

i know many of you will disagree but this whole thing stinks of white priviledge.

Absolutely incredible statement and one that most would snigger at.

Some posters on this thread have disappeared so far up their own arse they are meeting their tea from earlier on.

Pandering to this womans needs is tantamount to capitulation.

Remove her and allow her to try her luck in tribunal if she pushes to try to have her own way...it looks like a win for the company given the facts in front of us.

Angelos, working with lesbians is fine. The problem is only with working with men who are not related. This is to prevent situations where a woman would bear a baby and her husband would end up with an heir who was a cuckoo so to speak. It is also to prevent illicit use of a family's/father's/husband's property (i.e. a woman's body) by males who are not taking on the responsibilities of marriage, and leaving the family or husband with soiled goods on their hands.

This woman is probably getting nagged and pressured by her MIL and/or FIL about the job. She is now within their family and has been since marriage. They may have a stricter idea of Islam than the one she had before she came within their orbit. The request for prayer time may have been something she came up with to persuade them she was a good devout Muslim who had chosen to work in a company where her faith could be accommodated. They may find it shameful that their son can't afford to keep his wife at home or they may think she is some sort of hussy to want to keep working now that she is married. That is a problem for her to sort out at home though. If her IL family is on her tail (and I may be barking up the wrong tree) then they may not be happy until she is a stay at home wife.

If the request doesn't fit with what you can reasonably manage within your small business, OP, then say you are sorry but scheduling facts of life make this impossible. Let her decide what she can or can't accept after that.

I don't know how the issue of letting her go came up - there is no need to do this (and it might actually cause problems) and I have no idea how it became linked.

So you have no problem honouring employees' rights but you think a pregnant woman who is discriminated against can't complain if she didn't mention her pregnancy at interview? Well I guess that's honest!

Trouble is, the kind of employer who discriminates against pregnant women (not you, of course) would quite clearly be likely to do so at interview also, meaning the woman would find herself jobless.

Still, the viewpoint that pregnant women shouldn't apply for jobs as it's unfair on employers is one I've seen on here a fair bit so I shouldn't be surprised really.

Could you just employ her over the busy periods only? Even if it means her hours are scattered over 5 or 6 days.

You know, there are people who genuinely and religiously believe that God made black people inferior to white people; and there are some who believe the opposite ("sun people" and "ice people").

Would anyone expect an employer to even think about honouring a request not to work alone with black - or white - colleagues?

Just a thought.

Yeah, Caruthers, like there's no white Muslims, right?

TBH, there's two ways of seeing this. One is from the view of thinking, 'how can I make my employer accommodate these things I feel I need?' and the other is 'how can I be most useful to the business, and fit my needs around this?' Employees that tread the latter path tend to do better at work.

I hope the OP gives us an update of the situation.

BoffinMum that's too much like common sense to be taken on by some posters.

Remove someone from their job for making a request? What nonsense. You cant just go around firing people for making a request!

"Remove her and allow her to try her luck in tribunal if she pushes to try to have her own way...it looks like a win for the company given the facts in front of us."

You think sacking someone for asking for an adjustment to accommodate a protected characteristic would be a win for the company at a tribunal?

Good grief.

I suppose this thread is the very reason we have employment law.