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.

A married chaperone? Is this a Jane Austen novel, instead of 21st century Britain?

Just listen to yourself.

You says she's a good worker and apparently, despite being new, the only person in your team who can manage this task.

It's HER project @JWhipple . So of course it has to be her. The only alternative is that OP does it, as she's been supervising, but that has major ramifications around costing and calendars. And then what happens next time? If this person can't carry her projects to completion she has no future in the company, and she simply won't be able to be given those protects.

As a side note: why are so many posters, including the OP, repeating what their DHs advised, as if it is at all relevant? Much of the advice is garbage - but that's not really the point.

Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for my DH point of view; but he is not the Oracle just because he is a man. He doesn't know how to do my job and I don't know how to do his.

To me it just sits rather oddly on a thread where several posters are concerned about the feminist implications of this situation. That & the fact that so many people seem so keen - to the point of being almost gleeful - at the prospect of depriving a woman of her livelihood due to this.

You might not get it, you might think it’s ridiculous, and in western society it is. But this is her deeply held belief system.
Personally, I think that allowing her to take along an unpaid ‘chaperone’ is a reasonable adjustment. It wouldn’t bother me. It makes no difference to the company or the client or the job. It is not costing anyone money, in fact it is potentially saving them some money in allowing the woman to comfortably complete her role.

Is there a “lone worker“ aspect to this…? If it is someone going alone to a particular place …?

So if someone said "I just asked my sister... (insert sisters experience)..." that would be okay?

That poster didn't ask her husband because he's a man. She asked him because she sees him as having relevant experience and he's in the same room.

We’ll have to disagree then because I don’t consider that to be reasonable and if I was asked to be the chaperone I would refuse, and if I was the employer I would refuse as well. It’s is not the role of employers to accommodate backwards belief systems that are incompatible with the norms of British life. That is profoundly unreasonable.

Sorry, the advice above is wrong, religious beliefs are one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, so the two year period doesn't apply.,

I'd get legal advice.
Is there a workaround - like the client visiting your premises to do the work?

I'm assuming that this is a fairly high level and important meeting. If the employee turns up at the clients with a random auntie to chaperone her, I suspect the client is going to take her a lot less seriously than he otherwise would. And that isn't going to help her or the company one bit.

Indirect discrimination occurs when a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) is applied by the employer which is harder for someone with a protected characteristic to comply with. The discrimination can be justified if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

so in this case the PCP is that people attend client sites for meetings. Sometimes this means being alone (but in presumably an open plan office not a sex dungeon) with people of the opposite sex.

is wanting staff to attend client sites a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim? The aim being happy clients and profitable work, I would say yes. Given that certainly not all Muslims will refuse to do it and it is at best her interpretation of the religion.

It just strikes me as odd and not about it being OK or otherwise. I share opinions with those close to me like all of us, but I don't think I would post 'my sister thinks x', implying that this proves that of course, my sister thinking it makes it valid. Because if I agree with my sister then it is my opinion too - so why not just state that?

Why would a random DH of a poster know more than anyone else posting?
I could cite my (considerable) business experience and knowledge of the law; but frankly I know I can't advise exactly what to do in this situation as I am not there on the ground with full knowledge of all the facts. So I freely admit I don't know how to resolve it - I just know the potential risks & recommend caution as have other posters. It is disconcerting how many people feel they can give dangerous advice with such confidence, when what is at stake is a woman's livelihood as well as the protection of the OP's employer's interests.

The OP needs to obtain appropriate support IRL and not rely on what her DH, her sister, or posters here (including me), are advising her. Because much of the advice is garbage and if she were to follow it she & her employer would be in serious trouble.

As a side note: why are so many posters, including the OP, repeating what their DHs advised, as if it is at all relevant?

If this wasn't MN, I'd say irony.

But this is her deeply held belief system.

So are Star Wards and Tolkien. Yet I've never heard of someone having to use the force to deal with a project.

No. She won't be alone, will she? That's actually the problem!

Also "unpaid" doesn't work as it's a job, and jobs must be paid.

No, but she will be the lone representative of the company. Like an estate agent going into a house with clients.

I thought it was also widely understood that an employee cannot discriminate against a client on the basis of their sex. This employee is refusing to provide a service to her clients due to their sex. There doesn't seem to be any satisfactory accommodation that doesn't cost the business the entire profit and maybe also the relationship.

Unless the employee is willing to sacrifice her entire pay on the deal to being along a female colleague but again that may not be satisfactory to the client if aspects are meant to be confidential. At the end of the day the employee accepted this role knowing that her religion would interfere with her ability to do the work.

Is there a workaround - like the client visiting your premises to do the work?

Read the op's posts. She has said more than once that it is not possible to do the work in her office, or in a coffeeshop, or via Teams or Zoom.

As to taking an unpaid chaperone, the client would have to agree to having some random person who isn't employed by them or by op's company on their premises. There might be all sorts of reasons why they don't think it's appropriate.

Err

It isn't reasonable from an insurance and health and safety point of view for either business to bring a randomer onto the premises who won't be insured to be there!

Also the clients might rightly object to said randomer having access to confidential information. If this is a technology or research contract relating to a listed company it could constitute inside information which random people aren't legally allowed access to if it can affect share prices!

No your reasonable adjustment is not reasonable.

It's nothing like going into someone's house. She's going to a company's offices. A professional environment!

How do you think any women can carry out a professional role without having meetings with other professionals at their offices? Do you think every woman drags a colleague or their auntie with them?

I think you need to go on your own, but not charge the client extra (as I presume your /hr is higher than hers) - as it's not the client's fault that your employee is refusing to do her job.
I'd figure out with HR the proper process to transition your new hire out - so that you are covered. But it really is not about discrimination here - she is simply refusing OR not able to perform her job. This is not a case of you trying to send her to entertain clients on Ramadan, or something like that.

Which happens literally all the time. Never seen estate agents in pairs showing houses.

One of the norms of British life is abiding by the rule of law, including the Equality Act, which states that it is illegal to discriminate against employees due to protected characteristics and reasonable adjustments must be made.

Religious belief is a protected characteristic.

Yes, of course the question would need to be asked to all candidates. There may be others who are not religious, but may be unconfident of doing this part of the job and will refuse it. If the expectation is laid out straight away then the company will not be on the back foot after they have already employed someone.

Surely there is an admin assistant or secretary who can be spared for a few hours one afternoon to go along with her. They can take notes, learn a bit more about the business and get a bit of a change from the office. Problem solved.