To send an employee to a client even though she refuses because of her religion?

[GelatinousDynamo]

I have a new employee in my team, she is a devout Muslim. She's been with us since January and there were no issues so far, she's getting along well with everyone and her performance was fine. I sent her an email on Friday afternoon to say that our client has now (finally) prepared all necessary documents and that she should go there and go over everything with them one day next week. She wrote me back today that she can't do that because only men work in the department and she can't spend the day alone with strange men (because of her religion).

AIBU to insist that she does her job and goes there or would that be religious discrimination? She shares an office with a male colleague and has never complained about it. She's the first devout Muslim I've ever had on my team and I honestly have no experience at all with such issues. She's the only one who has the necessary experience and isn't already scheduled elsewhere.

This.

what if it is the other way around? surely that would be sexist?

Reasonable adjustment applies anywhere where the Equality Act 2010 confers protected characteristics. The reasonable adjustment in cases such as OP’s is to provide a work around to company policy or rule which disproportionately affects employees and could be considered indirect discrimination. This has been said several times now. It applies in all cases, not just disability.

If anything, the formal nature of how OP is behaving to the employee (fair, professional and legal) will indicate to the employee that this is a difficult company to 'pull one over', if that was even her initial intent

Providing OP does stick to those aims I agree with this, @blueshoes
As you suggest this isn't a mere chat between friends but a potentially thorny situation, and sticking with professionalism would be wise

On the "pulling one over" thing, with not knowing this employee I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt, but there's no denying such things do happen and it can be the answer to a PP's sensible suggestion about doing freelance work ... as in if there's not a direct employer there's no chance of a payout

If the case has no merit, the employee will be informed of that before the tribunal actually takes place, and they can be required to pay the costs incurred by the employer up to that point.

This situation is exactly where equality legislation is being abused, undermining faith in it for the people really that need it. Characteristics of religion which go again gender equality and reasonable social norms should not be protected. providing a space where someone can pray is a reasonable accommodation. Acquiescing to an employee who doesn't want to be alone with men because of religious or cultural beliefs is a not reasonable accommodation.

The employee knew it would be an issue and yet applied for the role. I have zero sympathy for her. I hope the OP gets good advice and cuts her losses. The employee will be an expensive weight around her neck.

You have to have that discussion during her probationary period and not at the end of it.

Not "veganism" per se, but having a whole way of life based around veganism, as in - it's a core belief and part of your value system. The man in the case this refers to, for example, didn't drive so as not to kill flies. It was more than veganism.

So, it's not quite right to say veganism itself it a protected characteristic. Belief is a protected characteristic, and veganism in some specific circumstances can be considered a belief. For example, veganism for health reasons would probably not be given the same protection.

this is a work environment. Outside of this situation would it be acceptable for you to bring your aunt or sister along?

I find it hard to believe that anyone who works in a technical advisory role would not expect to be the only female in the room at times. There aren't many advisory firms in legal, finance, engineering or tech where men don't significantly outnumber women. Its an emboldened grift and I suspect she wasn't given prestigious work in her last firm because she had them by the short and curlies on the ground of said protected characteristic.

Pretty rare they are told it has no merit. There's no "triage" for tribunal cases.

If the respondent asks for it to be dismissed as no merit (no reasonable prospect of success), that can be looked at but it still extremely rarely gets thrown out. The respondent can ask for a deposit order, say £1000, from the claimant to continue the case, bur in my experience they simply claim penury and the judge denies the request - I've never had a deposit order awarded.

Then, it's vanishingly rare that the claimant is on the hook for the respondent's costs. Again, I've never got a costs order. And if the respondent threatens a costs order the court really doesn't like that (though I often do it anyway, it does sometimes lead to cases being dropped).

And, after all that, if you even got the order, they wouldn't pay. The likelihood of them being able to pay is extremely low. And they simply refuse anyway. So you start again with another court case, throwing good money after bad.

Wouldn't the male client feel insulated if op had to ask him if an aunt could accompany this lady or can he provide a female chaperone at his end to protect this woman from him??

Just as we are offended when a Muslim man won't shake our hand??

The chaperoning is not because of the threat the man may ‘do something’. It’s a religious requirement of the faith. So your anger would be misplaced and pointless.

is this indirect sexual discrimination? the men can't help being men all together and their sex is a protected characteristic

No.

Getting legal employment advice via your HR Dept is definitely needed.

However, as an employer I would think that it's not a reasonable adjustment to ask all clients if they are just male employees present in their meetings and if they are, I would say again it's unreasonable to be expected to provide an additional employee at cost to chaperone. An external one could not be used as not under contract with your firm and therefore not subject to referencing / data protection, etc. Meeting attendees also change - so what happens if she shows up and the attendees are now all men present, she's going to refuse the meeting and your company is going to look unprofessional.

It's an interesting situation, please update with the outcome OP when you can.

This is correct, Lovelysausagedogscrumpy, but it doesn't stop some spouting the magic word "tribunal" in the hope it'll scare an employer into caving, either because they've not acquainted themselves with the law or just can't be bothered with the hassle

Ironically it can cause more hassle in the end because such an approach can attract others who'll try the same thing, which is where the need to remain professional at all times comes in

Pretty rare they are told it has no merit. There's no "triage" for tribunal cases

Edited to add there may be no "triaging" by tribunal staff, @Negroany, but there is on the journey there via ACAS, unions and so forth, who certainly have enough expertise to advise what's likely to fly and what isn't

I'm from a Muslim country and this is ridiculous. Its more cultural than religion. No Muslim lady I know of would do this.

I’ve not read all of this so apologies if this is nonsense but would it be acceptable for to take a female family member or similar along with her? Someone to chaperone but who you’re not paying??

I think this is a good idea. It's like when we allow some animals if they are service animals into places where no other animals arrive. Or a cane, or a wheelchair or similar. The company doesn't pay for the animal or cane or wheelchair, but doesn't forbid the employee from the accommodation. Can that work? She covers her own accommodation need of a chaperone?

Client confidentiality might be an issue though.

Could you have said chaperone sign a waiver?

I'd be tempted to reply

Hi x. I'm a bit confused. You have met this client and knew you would be working with them on this project. Why are you only raising this issue now?

care to explain why?

I'm Muslim and find this quite ridiculous if she already shares an office with a male coworker. However, easiest thing would be to do what previous posters have said and send another female colleague alongside her. Or do it via teams. Probably best to have a conversation with her about how to manage these situations in the future though as it won't be a one off by the sounds of it.

They are not disadvantaged. Currently they probably know nothing about it and even if they did, there's no disadvantage.

Also, indirect discrimination has a specific meaning. It's not just "almost discrimination" which seems to be what you are suggesting. It's a provision, criterion or practice that has the effect of placing people with a particular protected characteristic at a disadvantage.

Like saying you have to be six foot to be a police officer disadvantages women. While there are six foot women, on average, women are not six foot.

Are you being deliberately dense?

For a start, the other company are not employees of the OP's company so they do not have the obligation to make any adjustments under employment law.

And the employees have not been disadvantaged in any way by this specific company representative not wanting to attend their office alone.

You need legal advice but if not mentioned at interview etc then I would think this is basically refusing to do her job = gross misconduct and you can sack her. I work with loads of people who are Muslim and often work with only men, she's being ridiculous.