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 not an expert but work in payroll in a small family run company without access to specialist hr people

I would just put in writing that having considered the request in light if current staffing levels & the fact that one of the managers is male that although you will try to limit the times that she is rotad to work alone with a male you are unable to guarantee this due to the possibility of sickness, holiday & your statutory duty to ensure both males & females are fairly treated in terms of shifts allocated. Also that whilst on current staffing levels you will as stated above limit these occasions you cannot guarantee that in the future the ratio of male/female employees will change making this impossible.

of course many would snigger at it....just like you've been sniggering at her request so far. i said it stinks of white priviledge because of the blatant superiority complex most of you have shown on here and the islamophobia. Nice of you to mention white muslims....clutching at straws now eh? Doesn't change the white priviledge argument at all.

Fact is the Christian church has been granted legal protection to wilfully discriminate against men AND women ALL over the world over something that isn't even a choice, and here you are getting all hot under the collar because ONE WOMAN has made a request according to her religious belief.

Some of you are still harping on about how she must be being forced to make this request and her previous request for swapping her lunch times to use as prayer times....REALLY???? Are you seriously saying that a muslim woman DOES NOT EVER MAKE HER OWN DECISIONS?? Absolute ignorant and islamophobic bollocks!

You also keep ignoring the rampant discrimination with which everyone else is treated when it concerns maternity pay, cover and welfare- especially with regards to repeat pregnancies. however, THAT discrimination is allowed by law but none of you seem to have a problem with that.

it doesn't surprise me you don't want to see the problem of white priviledge in this...

This has reminded me of a long-ago request by an orthodox Jewish colleague who asked to go home early on Fridays to observe the Sabbath. In the darkest days it would have meant about 2pm.

I guess he'd started in spring or summer, but I don't really remember. He was foreign so might not have realised how early darkness descends in the UK winter. Or maybe he did and just wanted to get his feet under the table before rocking the boat.

I don't blame him for that and I raise my eyebrows at the posters who insist they'd lay all their cards on the table in an interview.

He appeared to be a good employee from the company's point of view, and though not my special friend, was a nice enough person.

All of us supported his request. Or at least, we didn't object.

It wasn't as if it was going to last that long and he was going to make up the hours so we could cope easily - most importantly without resentment.

When push came to shove, we didn't push it. We had a very strong union chapel but he was the only person who wasn't a member. It was for reasons that I didn't explore, but I am a union member and so therefore, I didn't feel obliged to support someone who wasn't prepared to align themselves to me on that score.

Our boss refused. I think the shine had gone off this man and he was looking for a reason to get rid of him and this presented the perfect opportunity.

The Jewish man left because this was very important to him.

Union membership is very important to me.

Difficult, isn't it?

I'm pleased that it's now been taken out of my hands and that consideration for various protected characteristics is accepted under the law.

limitedperiod - I used to work with a lot of devout Jewish people. In fact the firm was 75% devout Jewish. I am Jewish by birth (but not practicing in any sense) and therefore 75% of the employees disappearing at about 3.00 pm was fab for me as a junior employee as I got to run the place on a Friday afternoon.

Having said that, the devout Jews definitely made up the hours on other days and they definitely didn't object to working with people who were not Jewish.

We had a Kosher microwave and a Gentile microwave in the kitchen which we all respected.

I really don't think this is the same thing. Objecting to working with a certain specific type of other employee is a big problem for me. If Sarah had to have special hours because of her religion and it could be accommodated - as it seems it can in this case then no problem.

twizzleship my view has nothing to do with Islamophobia but the sexism involved in her request. I don't know if this is an accurate interpretation of why such a request might be made. It was posted by mathanaxniety whose post sounded reasonable.

"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."

Sarah can of course think that way if she likes. I'm equally entitled, whether you like it or not, to find that way of thinking revolting. And that whether it is expressed by a man or a woman and whether promulgated by any religion or just plain, simple misogyny.

Possibly mathanaxniety's explanation is wrong but she/he is the only poster who has given an explanation beyond "it's her faith" Comparing this to the practical effects of rights to protect pregnant employees and their children just isn't the same.

Sarah's employer will have to consider her request but implementing it is likely to be impractical,which is probably just as well as otherwise her employer would have to explain this to her male colleagues.

This is getting ridiculous now - talk of islamophobia FFS!

The matter is very simple. An employee wants to change her working arrangements. That's something that any employee is entitled to ask, and any responsible employer should consider.

From what we are told about the way this small company operates, it is not going to be practical for the request to be granted, and therefore the employer will have to decline it and explain to the employee why it cannot be done.

It will then be up to the employee to decide whether she can continue working as they have been, or find another job that can meet her requirements.

That's all there is to it.

If the OP were to accept the request what do posters think that she should/would do when "sarah" has her children?

Do you think that the OP should allow her to dictate the shift patterns of the other workers as she would be dropping off and picking up children?

What happens if one of the males drops off and picks up as well? should his shifts still be moved to suit "sarah"?

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!

Hang on a sec - that second bit isn't wat I said at all. Of course an expectant mum can complain; if she's genuinely been discriminated against she'll get proper restitution and quite right too

I was smply raising the point that it's not just employers who have to behave properly; the claimant's reasonableness (or lack of it) can also be a factor in deciding a case, as with the lady I mentioned ... though of course that one was withdrawn almost straight away when she realised she'd completely shot herself in the foot

You know, Sallyingforth, in the society in which we all live (including Sarah) this request cannot be compared with such a request as Please can I avoid the Tuesday evening shift? - it is not the same. It impacts on others in a potentially discriminatory and highly offensive way and msut be seen in that light.

Andrewofgg
Any request must be considered on its merits. The factors you mentioned will be part of that consideration, and from what the OP has said will make it difficult to agree.

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

me: "Would you say the same about a woman who didn't reveal a pregnancy at interview?"

Puzzled: "Yes, I certainly would."

I don't think we disagree, Sallyingforth.

Twizzleship Some of you are still harping on about how she must be being forced to make this request and her previous request for swapping her lunch times to use as prayer times....REALLY???? Are you seriously saying that a muslim woman DOES NOT EVER MAKE HER OWN DECISIONS?? Absolute ignorant and islamophobic bollocks!

All of this came up after she married, and importantly after she had been hired. It is more than reasonable to assume marriage changed the goalposts for her. The alternative is to accuse her of concealing material facts about herself in a job interview.

If the rules on praying five times a day and not working alone with an unrelated male were so important to her before she married and before she interviewed for this job, then she should have mentioned them as they were material to the question the OP was trying to answer during the interview process, i.e. 'is this a good prospect for the job I have on offer, given the number of staff I have and the way I schedule?'

I'm finding it odd that people are linking her request for prayer time with her request for never being alone with males... The two requests are in no way equivalent, and implying they are does risk sounding islamaphobic.

The first request is reasonable and doesn't effect any other employee or the smooth running of the business. Plenty of people have this arrangement in the various jobs I've had and it's never been an issue. If this request was refused there would be grounds for a discrimination claim.

However needing to be always with a female is much more difficult in a small business. Scheduling, sickness and emergency cover become very difficult if not impossible. It also makes you responsible for ensuring she never comes into contact with a man whilst alone which feels too much responsibility to put you under when realistically you can't control this. What would happen of someone was sick and you had to replace that person with a male member of staff? Would she then refuse to do that shift?

It's just too difficult.

Plus the idea that a woman needs 'protecting' from half the population could cause a discrimination claim from the men who have to be kept away from her.

I really don't think this is the same thing. Objecting to working with a certain specific type of other employee is a big problem for me.

ManWithNoName I think it is. We are talking about extreme religious or cultural views that impinge on the secular.

Usually they don't, but sometimes they do. We have to work out how we're going to deal with it. I'm saying that a clash happened to me a long time ago and I think it could have been dealt with in a better way.

I now realise that my orthodox Jewish colleague might have had, if not so much a problem with working with me as an individual, some reservations with being alone with a woman. It wasn't obvious to me at the time, and it wouldn't have arisen because it was about a 60-40 male to female split, but I've now realised that was probably the case.

I'm not insulted because he didn't behave in an insulting manner. But I do now realise why I found him quite peculiar.

I now realise that was why he wasn't my friend - though he was perfectly polite.

There were two non-practising reform Jews in the office who seemed not to care either way.

Interestingly, a reform Jew I worked closely with was incensed at my colleague and agreed with his dismissal. He was also angry about an eruv proposed in his neighbourhood. I decided not to get involved because I thought that was a bit beyond my pay grade.

I think my colleague's issues were workable and our boss should have accommodated them. These days he would have to show willing and I think that would be right.

I'm not sure 'Sarah's' request is as easily workable. And that's all that needs to be said.

I find talk about sexism and whatnot, nonsense. It's a private dialogue between her and her employer.

They are linked in that they are both requests that affect other employees and scheduling. They are also linked because both requests came after the employee had been hired with an understanding of the number of employees and the scheduling, and both are based on her religious devotion. Both requests also came after her marriage.

But I agree the prayer time request is much easier to accommodate and much more usual and not a big deal in the larger scheme of things. The not working alone with an unrelated man is unreasonable given that she had a chance to find out details about the gender of colleagues she might be working with at the interview stage if this was something that was important to her.

I have said it before but I'll say it again anyway, Sarah's request is not sexist. She isn't making the request because she finds men weird or inferior or stupid. It simply because if a man and woman are alone together then the third person in the room is the devil. This basically means that when no one can see then stuff might happen. Yes we all know that people can work together in a room and nothing untoward happens but we all know that stuff happens. And yes, it can happen anywhere at any time, not just because they worked alone together. It basically a rule that's there to be on the safe side I suppose.

Someone wrote something earlier which I didn't quite get, something about a woman having a cuckoo child and her husband having to look after it. I have no idea what that meant but some people have some pretty stereotypical ideas of Muslims.

I cant see in the Ops post where it says that she made this request after getting married but maybe that was mentioned later. Perhaps it wasn't something in her mind at the time of getting the job and it was the getting married that made her think about it. Or maybe it is her family that are asking her to make this request but it would be nice if people didn't assume that Sarah doesn't have the ability to think and speak for herself!

"It simply because if a man and woman are alone together then the third person in the room is the devil. This basically means that when no one can see then stuff might happen"

This is not a dark club where alcohol and drugs flow and inhibitions are lowered. It is a public store. A well-lit, professional space with wide open doors where anyone can step in at any moment.

It is hardly a setting where "stuff might happen".

In any case, if she doesn't want "stuff" to happen, all she has to do is not allow "stuff" to even begin.

Or are you saying that the male colleague might rape her?

On the one hand we have the statement:
She isn't making the request because she finds men weird or inferior or stupid. It simply because if a man and woman are alone together then the third person in the room is the devil.

And in the same post:
...it would be nice if people didn't assume that Sarah doesn't have the ability to think and speak for herself

So, can she in fact think and reason for herself, or is she some sort of automaton into whose ear the devil could whisper a suggestion and she would have no choice but to act upon it?
By extension, are all men suspect for similar lack of ability to contain themselves in the face of the third party in the room when they are alone with a woman?

The reference to a 'cuckoo' is to a bird that lays its eggs in the nests of other birds, leaving the other birds to hatch and rear its chicks.

Russian the reference to "cuckoo" child was in mathathanxiety's It's pretty obvious what she meant - Sarah's husband would be cuckolded(i.e she would commit adultery) Sarah would pass off any resulting child as her husband's. In other words there would be a cuckoo in the nest.

I'm not sure why you object to that as a "stereotypical idea of Muslims" as it's saying exactly the same as what you have just said. A man and a woman can't be trusted to be alone together. I assume by the devil being present you mean metaphorically in that they will be exposed to temptation? In which case your explanation is exactly the same as mathanxiety's.

I think Sarah's request is extremely sexist. She's basically saying she does not trust her male colleagues to behave.

x posted there

So why not the same worry about stuff happening when shes alone with another woman? I assume men also have to avoid being alone with another man or anothet woman? And in fact why does another person stop the devil - what about threesomes? The whole thing is based on mistrust of women and the fact that thwy are the be used by men as far as I can tell.

I wish you lot would stop over-analysing this.

It doesn't matter a jot what Sarah's motives are. You can't read her mind or her husband's or the devil's, and you don't need to.

She has made a request not to work alone with a man. If that request can reasonably be met, it should be. In this case it seems that it can't.

End of.

I suppose people are just trying to get a handle on what is essentially a (foreign) cultural request made by someone working and living in the UK. It is not a common demand of the muslim faith.

We aren't in a country where a woman (or man for that matter) can be arrested for being in a car with a member of the opposite sex. Thank god for that. Kids in uniforms can't tell you off and threaten you for showing a lock of hair. Thank god for that too.

Perhaps she has become more extreme in her religious practice, maybe she really wanted the job and has been wrestling with her conscience since she started, maybe he hubby has been whinging at her every day about her being alone with other men, or maybe she is just a pain in the backside, who knows?

It is not 'everyday' practice in islam to be so suspicious of the other sex. This is one (extreme) interpritation of part of the religion, and does not represent the majority who just get on with their lives and jobs.

If we had to avoid all temptation that may lead us to sin in word, thought and deed, then accountants and bank tellers should be constantly monitored in case they were tempted to steal, people working in shops would be watched like hawks in case they stole anything, neighbours wouldn't talk to each other in case they got jealous...

Apologies if this has already been linked to but OP might find the EHRC guidance for employers on religion and belief in the workplace useful.