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.

Wouldn't say every post is Muslim bashing but there is some on this thread

If a Roman Catholic espoused the Church‘s official line on homosexuality in a workplace they’d be in trouble. You have to be realistic.

She shakes hands and works with them as long as they are married.

Meaning she discriminates against her clients based on 2 protected characteristics to her one.
They are male- sex
They are not married- marital status

No reasonable adjustment can be made since the employer is not permitted to ask or hold/process such sensitive info about their clients or employees under GDPR.
Reasonable adjustments only allow you to do the same job in a different way. Eg different meal time to allow prayers. You aren't allowed extra time off since that would discriminate against all other employees for having a different belief or none.
Same applies here. She doesn't get to shirk off on part of her work or offload it to a colleague and she doesn't get to practice discrimination whilst she does it.

@blubberyboo "She shakes hands and works with them as long as they are married."

Thats not what the OP stated -

"She shares her office with a male colleague and has no problems shaking hands with men"

Ergo, the woman has no protected characteristics. She is selective in her bullshit faith observance and is enacting insubordination.

Therefore, she should be summarily sacked - even more so because she hasnt been there 2 years.

as I said “I’m assuming because Katemax82 DS didn’t react well.” How that happened I would have no idea, only the people involved would, but given we have no idea of the posters sons needs he could have reacted badly or the girl could have reacted badly that he wouldn’t bow to her religious needs or others present could have acted badly, so the other people there felt they needed to call the police. It’s not that hard of a stretch to see how situations, any situations could escalate and police being called especially in an education setting where I assume they had protocols in place for disturbances 🤷‍♀️

@GelatinousDynamo What did your hr and legal advice say?

Muslim bashing? I have a healthy contempt for misogynic practices in ALL religions. To expect people to accommodate chaperones in a professional technical advisory setting is dragging women back to the dark ages. It makes no commercial sense either.

Factually this is England and it is 2025. Chaperones, outside of a few specific settings, should never be a thing here.

Did OP say she was in England?

Good job that isn't remotely what was said then isn't it?

I described two different situatiosn requiring the same or similar adjustment. Everything else is you projecting your own prejudices. I note you failed to answer the question.

Interestingly in decades of experience in consulting/advisory in a heavily male dominated area I have experienced the need resulting from assault/abuse scenario a few times but never that combination of religious observance clahing unavoidably with a 100% male client or 100% male client working in an enclosed space.

Really? You have spent time and resources recruiting someone with senior level skills in an in-demand area such that you can't backfill and yet your go-to is not to discuss further with the employee and possibly the client but to go straight down the legal route? And your HR team can't answer a standard question on equalities law - which is bread and butter to most HR teams, especially in consulting/advisory.

If she is senior there is another option to consider in addition to those above - a junior on the bench as note taker but using the opportunity to learn about the client and client management during the meeting. My juniors would be gagging for this kind of opportunity between roles.
Presumably you have a company NDA based agreement with the client and not a list of names? I've never had a client say "no" to this, subject to the junior being cleared if required for the industsry. I find you notion that this common industry practice is the equivalent of "taking your mum" along to the meeting to be very bizarre.

Its really depressing on a women centred forum that the immediate reaction of so many is "just sack her". I can only assume none of these people have ever worked in a consulting model or tried to recruit expensive skills and I really hope none of them are in management positions or otherwise responsible for staff careers. The level of religion/Islaam bashing on this thread is depressingly unsurprising as well.

Fair point. I have made assumptions based on the fact that OP has not said that the equality legislation, which has been linked and referred to several times on this thread, is not relevant because they are overseas.

I think you've missed my point. I wasn't implying the OP was overseas. I was asking if she had said she was in ENGLAND. I am, for example, in the UK. I am not in England.

I stand by my statement.

Ok. Feel free to read the thread to answer that question.

I have ready the thread, and more specifically, OP's own posts. I cannot see where she states she is in England, which is why I asked the question. But if you don't want to answer it, fine.

Think it's just most of the Mumsnet userbase is based in England.

And ignorant assumptions that UK = England need to be called out when they arise. Happens all the time on here and it's very dull.

In this particular case, it didn't even occur to PP what I meant and she started chatting about 'overseas'.

Tell her that of she has a friend who would volunteer to accompany her to that's fine

Are you on drugs? A friend, really?
This woman is a professional being sent out to a client site to carry out work. It is not acceptable to bring a friend.

@Maddy70 that would be completely unprofessional it’s not a tea party it’s a business meeting

I don't understand how this has not been an issue before. How has she been able to get to senior level in a client meeting based role without this having curbed her career choice very early on? Has she only ever had someone with her or always made sure there was at least one woman during all her appointments?

this is definitely an issue for HR and whatever legal team they decide to consult.

i personally believe that her request actively discriminates against other people on the basis of sex, a protected characteristic, and should therefore not be allowed.

My employer had something similar. Lady in question was completely fine about certain foods we served then a month into the job refused point blank to touch them, even in the packaging. It was a nightmare because near enough all of our foods have this certain item in them. When we put them into the oven she could smell it cooking so would stand in the corridor. My employer didn’t keep her on at the end of probation. Shame because she was lovely but it made our jobs twice as hard

I wouldn't waste your time worrying about me assuming the OP is in England. You have bigger problems if that is your main gripe about this thread and its subject matter.

I have already posted to this thread about the main topic so it's far from my 'biggest gripe'. II see from PP that you've failed to respond to their points on the main topic so seems to be something of a habit.