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.

It’s not about anyone’s views though. It’s about what the law considers reasonable. Which is open to a lot of misuse. Legal advice needed- however I would say that if there is a large party of the time that the employer can’t do, then this is not reasonable and they should not be in the role. OP would need to explore and document all reasonable adjustments explored first.

It is bollocks though, isn't it? Just because millions follow the norms of a particular religion don't means that large elements of it aren't oppressive and/or bollocks.

Most religions are based on the belief of male superiority, whilst using honour and tradition as interchangeable straitjackets for women. The way some peopme would choose to follow Islam's traditonal view on men and women.working together is outdated, backwards, prejudiced and sexist (basically bollocks (any derisive word will do)) Tolerating or accomodating those views is not consistent with a civilised society.

This is very pertinent.

OP needs to understand the longer term implications in job planning and costing.

How likely is it that OP’s employee may turn up to an on site meeting and the clients turn out to be a group of males?

How acceptable would it be to request details of attendees at on site client meetings and updates of substitutions if ‘the woman’ on a client team were not to attend for some reason?

I have no idea what is normal or acceptable practice or occurrence - but this is bigger than a one off situation and the implications need to be thought through fully.

It sounds like it is time for an HR policy to be formulated for meetings / conduct in general which clarify expectations of staff at each level. Transparency on job / hiring requirements for both potential employees and employer are needed here.

I’m sure any policy (and law) would constantly evolve, but seems essential to put a starting point in place for everyone’s sake.

If she's going to do her job properly, she'll need a chaperone / assistant. Someone you hire at minimum wage to accompany her to large meetings.

Or, employ the assistant for all of you, and you'll just have someone there to go with her when needs be.

All teams in any role could do with an assistant really.

This !!!! Every time I read “couldn’t you just send her with a chaperone” more friggin steam comes out of the top of my head !

She’s venting on here. I’m sure she’s professional enough not to do it to the employee’s face. I think trans and NB issues are total bollocks but I’d manage to be professional and courteous to people with these identities at work

Yes, and the company will need to learn from this for future recruitment.
At the interview it should be made clear what the expectations of these on site meetings are, and that they involve meeting people of one, or both sexes, solo, and then asking the candidate to confirm they are willing to do this.

My DH says I should just fire her, but he's obviously not a lawyer.

he's “obviously” a twat though

No, you’re wrong’

The specific duty to make reasonable adjustments applies only to disability.

go and read the Equality Act

indieect discrimination applies to all protected characteristics and can be defended if the discrimination is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim
the duty to make reasonable adjustments applies only to disability and the aim of it is to remove or reduce the effect of the employee’s disability to enable them to do their job,

Yup. He should have said just ensure she doesn’t pass the probation period and get her out that way.

If you say so

All this talk of chaperones is genuinely disgusting. This is Britain the 21st century. We do not chaperone women, we do not segregate by sex in the workplace. And we should not be pandering to those who want to drag our country backwards in the name of religion. If anyone asked me to be a chaperone in this circumstance I would point blank refuse.

How anyone can call that “reasonable” I can’t think.

Disgraceful. So much for integration!

She probably took the job knowing full well there would come a time she would be asked to be alone working alongside men and could kick up a stink if she was disciplined or sacked and then she would claim thousands in unfair dismissal etc.

@Lovelysausagedogscrumpy

this is the relevant section in the Equality Act on indirect discrimination. Perhaps you can point out where it sets out the duty to make reasonable adjustments, as I certainly can’t see it?

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/19

on the other hand, here is the section of the equality act which does refer to reasonable adjustments:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/20

which only applies to disabled persons.

words matter in law and when advising on it, this is why OP needs professional advice and not from randoms on mumsnet who make up laws

The irony is those supporting it will seriously consider themselves to be ‘progressive’ and ‘anti sexism’

Having a protected characteristic is a shield against discrimination. It does not mean she doesn't have to perform reasonable duties as part of her job that any other employee would also be expected to undertake.

Hope you're not referring to me there....

The unplalatable truth though, is that there are protected charateristics and "protected charateristics"

Protected Charateristics:
Age,
Sex,
Disability,
Sexual Orientation,
Nationality ("race" whatever that is)

"Protected Charateristics:"
Gender (inc Gender reassignment),
Religion,
Nationality ("race" whatever that is) (not a mistake 😀),
Pregnancy,
Marital Status

Now that isn't a legal list, obviously. It's more a field spotters guide. But some will have spotted why there are two categories (feel free to comment, not that you need my permission 😆) and how easy it is to set up a perpetual struggle between them, were one so inclined.

A previous poster commented that there is a need to radically overhaul the equalities act. Personally I'd be happy to see what we have actually implemented. But any update should really reflect the reality of the above. Which I would be the first to admit is up for discussion and not a settled view.

A miscevious person - or an "AI" bot in training - could have hours of fun creating all sorts of plausible scenarious where there is a "Battle of the Characteristics". In fact I might do that for fun. 😀

I’m surprised at some of the responses here, a devout Muslim woman is not allowed to spend time alone in the. Company of just men.

i thought this was widely understood,

i think if there is an alternative for this you should try to accommodate her, and as some PP have suggested confirm the law in this regard with your HR department.

I’m surprised at some of the responses here, a devout Muslim woman is not allowed to spend time alone in the. Company of just men.

The thing is, you can chose how devout you are. You can't chose being a man. Or a woman. (Well not in theory).

This is where 'reasonable' is relevant. If it means the business can't be competitive and is losing contracts and business because its financially unsustainable and it's damaging client relationships, then actually there maybe grounds to say the request can't be met and there's reasonable grounds to turn in down and that they will have to adjust the job role in other ways but that may mean she can't carry out the role she was hired for.

It's definitely one for lawyers.

Do this, be as gracious as possible in offering alternatives. Record the efforts you've made. Give her absolutely no come back.

Then sack her within the two year period because 'it's not working out'.

No one would put up with a Christian or a Jewish person taking a job they know they're cannot perform.

It's not culturally acceptable to refuse to meet with the opposite sex in your professional role in the UK. Neither should it be, it's as bad as the Muslim man that would not shake hands with women. Discrimination on the basis of his made up sky fairy.

It's this kind of shit, the erosion of Western liberal values that is leading to the rise of the right. It's why the USA has Trump.

I wouldn't move to Saudi and walk round eating a bacon sarnie whilst wearing a bikini top. They have strong boundaries about what they consider acceptable. The UK needs to work on healthy boundaries before we end up with Farage in charge.

Some of us don't care what Islam says about this matter. We also dont believe Islam should have any influence over it. We care about equality in the workplace not outdated or misogynistic restrictive working practices. We have enough problems with equality without religious bad actors of any denomination restricting our movements.

Some of us don't care what Islam says about this matter.

As is our right - not just choice. Right.