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.

What an ignorant post!

Sorry I cant reply to you without an appointed chaperone present to monitor our interaction because I am literally a 2 year old baby

Adjustment for ‘age’ them!

age is also a protected characteristic. Although mainly used to protect older pp . Came across only one instance of a young person claiming/ using it.

This will rear itself over and over and be an ongoing headache for management and other staff who may need to cover. I can't believe I'm saying this, in this instance accommodate her beliefs by going yourself or sending someone else. But then find ways to fail her probation before 6 months. She can't do the job she was hired to do.

Not relevant in any way

I have worked in professional consulting where Muslim women have brought chaperones with them to the interview. (They got the job)

I’ve linked the guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission twice including in the quote tree you are replying to.

The accommodations needed (and those that don’t need to be made because the effect on the business are too great) are discussed at p8.

WOW. What a bigoted post. Are you Tommy Robinson's PA?

You realise there are countries and cultures where it is completely normal to bring family members to the interview? Probably not something to actually laugh about if it happens unless you want a clear tribunal case.

Have you asked her what could work for her?

Discuss that client meetings are a part of the job & you would like to support her. Has she any suggestions how she could manage this aspect of the role? Eg meet clients in your office, meet somewhere neutral like a cafe, take a trusted member of the team with her? Did she understand this would be a part of her day job, how is she feeling about that?

Religion is a protected characteristic. Could someone go with her?

The UK isn't one of them, and noone is winning a tribunal for that

Not the UK thankfully

It isn't. It's to protect the man from her and her womanly wiles.
Depressing but true.

For the OP laughing at them and telling them their cultural norm is ‘bollocks’? I wouldn’t count on it and since the issue can easily be avoided by the OP being polite, she’d be sensible to do so.

You need to find out what the legal implications are from HR. It's as simple as that

A chaperone would only need to be any female person within eyeline. Does the client honestly not have a single female on their premises?

Good job OP has said multiple times she's going to.

Does it matter at all if any of this works for the (soon to be ex) client?

But OP has said that they would charge the client for the meeting per hour. They would not be happy to pay the extra cost of a second person?

They wouldn’t have to in this situation.

It is being suggested a female employee of the client sit nearby and get on with her own work. No payment required. Edited to say: other than wages already due.

I’m not saying this is practical and the OP has already said there are no women in the office but that’s what is being suggested.

I can't imagine asking any client of mine to provide a female employee to sit nearby.

Right. So not the Equality Act, and not reasonable adjustments. Also, nothing to do with direct discrimination, but rather the defence for (some types of) indirect discrimination which is an entirely different thing.

Though it wasn't you who posted the comment I was responding to.