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.

If this was likely to be a one-off, I'd try to accommodate her. But if she's working in a technical field where most of your clients are male, then she can't reasonably do her job. HR and legal are the way to go.

A big unknown … is what exactly is the issue.

Is it working outside the office, because employee doesn’t know the situation in a client workplace??
At a client workplace, their own employees, visitors and clients can move around changing the gender dynamics in their offices at any time.

Does this employee need to know for 100% certain who & their gender will be at any place where she has a meeting.

It’s difficult to understand if it’s just this one client, or if it will be all external clients. It’s not appropriate for OP to ask clients the number and gender of people in a meeting room, and if there is glass, or who in the building and ask client to guarantee gender attendance.

If she can never visit an external client, and it’s required then there are decisions that need to be made. She can take a job that is internal only … but if it requires an additional hire to do job she isn’t doing - then it’s too costly to be reasonable.

Employee needs to define the issue with external meetings. Is it this one? Or ALL.

Surely there is an admin assistant or secretary who can be spared for a few hours one afternoon to go along with her.

And who is doing her work while she's sitting around watching someone else work?

And I don't think op has said how long the employee would need to be onsite. It might be a few hours one afternoon, it might be longer, it might be repeated visits.

Most companies don’t have admin assistants or secretaries anymore - my DH’s company hasn’t had them for a decade as all the things they used to do (travel, expenses, meetings etc) are all more easily and quickly done online, directly, by each employee. And suggesting that any such employees’s work is so unimportant that they can be spared for 2-3 hours, possibly multiple times a week, kind of smacks of denigrating their role?

Also the client might well not be local. OP talks about 'day' so there could be travel involved.

But the whole concept of sending a chaperone is, in afraid, batshit. It's not practical or economical, and it will affect how the client perceives the colleague and the company.

You might think that's wrong, but it's human nature.

OP doesn't say multiple times though, it might be a one off meeting.

I'm public sector and where I work travel is pretty much completely off the table due to funding. Everything has to be done via Teams, with special provisions in place due to the sensitivity of a lot of our work. I'm struggling to understand why a face-to-face meeting is necessary when most of the UK Govt is managing without them.

I don't think any one is gleeful about depriving a woman of income. I suspect most have an issue with women being pulled back into the dark ages by restrictive practices. There are enough attacks womens rights and autonomy without the chokehold of religious dogma.

Very telling that you have assumed that any secretary or admin assistant would naturally be female and that their own job would be of so little value that they could be spared in order to prevent this other employee practicing sex discrimination against the companies clients.

The employee wouldn't have the right to know the sex of her colleagues never mind clients. She could easily have found herself in a totally male office on her first day.

The employer has a requirement to make reasonable adjustments but if the adjustments are not reasonable and would be cumbersome they they have a defence. In this case the defence would also be they have a duty to not allow sex discrimination to be carried out against their clients. Op has made it clear this is likely to keep coming up in practice.

Employers do not have to bend to every ask/requirement of a religion if it is not practical and if it conflicts with another protected characteristic. Eg they do not have to offer prayer breaks at certain times if it affects the business/ clashes with busy periods. We would not accept a male colleague refusing to work with us as we are female. The main thing is that they can show everything they looked at and why it will not work.

OP isn't in the public sector.

This is genuinely part of her religion. Though they may be some exemption for necessity. Even she goes she'd refuse to shake their hands.

You are comparing apple and pears. The employee works in a technical, advisory role in a male dominated sector. She is being asked to perform the specialist role for which she was recruited, in a professional environment, with other professionals, onsite with her client. Working at a client site is an expectation in many advisory roles as is the likelihood that you might be the only female in a room full of men.

Perhaps the private sector understands the value of in-person meetings.

If it’s “genuinely part of her religion” then why have other Muslims on this thread said they wouldn’t have a problem with this scenario?

Meeting in person with the client(s) is “genuinely part of the job she’s contracted to do and is being paid for”.

When I read posts like:
'she's being a PITA. Get rid'
'Give her the sack. Only 2 months in and she has pulled this stunt'
'Just fail her after probation. Easiest way'

-it looks uncomfortably close to glee.

And the various comments about how troublesome Muslims & other religious people are and what an inconvenience to the rest of us, eg: 'these people are very litiginous', 'this person is a religious grifter'.

We don't know what the situation is with this woman; it could be due to her own genuine, freely-held beliefs or it could be more complex (as other posters have pointed out - pressure from a relative, or a cover for different concerns altogether?)

The way forward is to get expert advice before taking any actions on this which the OP, wisely, has said she is doing.

OP doesn't say multiple times though, it might be a one off meeting.

And then there'll be another meeting with another client. And another. And another. Because that's the job she's employed to do. And OP can't ask every prospective cient 'can you guarantee there'll be a woman present when my team member comes to you?' Or if she does, prospective clients will soon start looking elsewhere for their technical assistance.

If it’s “genuinely part of her religion” then why have other Muslims on this thread said they wouldn’t have a problem with this scenario?

Well it couldn't be becasue all religion is made up could it ?

We don't know what the situation is with this woman; it could be due to her own genuine, freely-held beliefs

But we return to the crux of all "equality". Why in the name of Dawkins should other people be requried to make changes in their lives for these beliefs ? Especially when it's been long established that equality of religion encompasses peoples right to have no religion.

You do you, But if your you is to tell me that I have to <insert whacky religious obligation> then my me is to say "I don't think so" in whatever form seems appropriate. Even if I can quote the Bbile chapter and verse.

Very telling that you have assumed that any secretary or admin assistant would naturally be female and that their own job would be of so little value that they could be spared in order to prevent this other employee practicing sex discrimination against the companies clients.

@blubberyboo to assume that the secretary or admin assistant is female is a very reasonable and logical assumption in the context because if they were male that would not solve the problem and in fact add another penis to the room.

No, it's part of her culture, Pepjjgf; just as with handshaking there's nothing in the Holy Quran to prohibit this and it's come from later "interpretations" and customs, which are often introduced by those keen to oppress women

I suppose she'd say it's "religion" if a less forward looking imam has backed it, but again Islam has no "central authority" and a lot gets left to community leaders

Way to miss the point! The poster didnt suggest another role without a penis. Only the lowest paid role in a particular industry. And didn't explain why this imaginary female would be able to take time away from her own role to sit and observe a meeting she has no business being at in the first place.

Private sector businesses have very many valid reasons to hold in person meetings..confidentiality being a very common and important one.

But she can still claim it was due to discrimination on the grounds of religion. The OP needs to be very careful.

It's not a tough one

In western, civilised society women deal with men

If she doesn't like it, she should go live in a country where this isn't the norm

But she can still claim it was due to discrimination on the grounds of religion.

^

She can claim, yes

I actually don't think it is asking too much for people to make some moderate adjustments to their lives to accommodate people's beliefs. I think reasonable people actually do that all the time, and with friends as well as colleagues. The fact they hold certain beliefs you don't share does not make them unworthy of respect as people.

It is not clear what is being asked of the OP's employer and whether it is manageable. It may be that this employee can be accommodated relatively easily without colleagues having to make changes, though of course in practice this will depend on a number of factors.

Not in this country, you don't!