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.

Well the woman in question is doing a rather dogshit job of that if thats the "reason".

As I posted earlier, she shares an office with a bloke unrelated to her AND shakes the hands of other men she is not related to. Ergo no protected characteristics or other claptrap along those lines.

She is being insubordinate to management requests relating to her work and is trying to cherry pick what she does/not do.

Ramadan has fuck all bearing here - the woman in question simply deserves to be fired for gross misconduct. And thats the bottom line.

well it’s between her and her religion. so what if she shares an office with men and shakes their hand, there could be reasons why for which we will never know. muslim women are always inclined to compromise their religion to fit into work culture, they shouldn’t have to when adjustments can be made. are you confident she didn’t feel comfortable with shaking male colleagues hands? perhaps she’s new to the religion or she wasn’t practicing before, hence ramadan was mentioned as said this is a month where muslims better themselves according to their religion. if there is any doubt; i’d suggest to research islamic values. Part of being british is tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs, and for those who don’t have a faith.
Firing someone won’t benefit anyone; it’ll impact their livelihood. I’d say it’s best to use this as learning experience for both parties involved.

Why are people bringing Ramadan into this?

The OP made zero reference to it.

And even if it was relevant (which it isnt), it doesnt change the fact the staff member is refusing to follow a reasonable management request.

This is insubordination that constitutes gross misconduct. And for that, she should be sacked. Pronto.

Part of being British is tolerating people of the opposite sex and not discriminating against them in the workplace or when providing a service.

She can’t do her job ? How is that discrimination

Competence is a protected characteristic.

If competence is one of these 'protected characteristics' does this mean that a person cannot be sacked for incompetence? Lucky employers.

Suggest you read my prior comments.

There are no PC to speak of in this case. The employee is a shirker.

Competence a protected characteristic I have heard it all now 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

How else can you possibly explain Liz Truss ?

Or indeed Gordon Brown who "forgot" to add VAT to the bill for the olympics.

@SerendipityJane you have a point

To all those suggesting a chaperone: you've never worked in a professional setting, have you?

Says the OP asking mumsnet AIBU about how to deal with a member of her team and she feels “ashamed” to go to HR😂

but what if the chaperone/"junior colleage" is also a man? If shadowing a senior staff member is such an exciting job you think juniors would be "gagging" for it, then surely it's unfair to only offer it to the female juniors - isn't that in itself sex discrimination?

the staff member is happy interacting with a male colleague in the office but not with unknown men elsewhere so who knows where her line is? Perhaps she can't travel in cars with men, so suddenly male junior has to get there separately and the office is needlessly paying for 2 hire cars or £300 train tickets.

What if junior is ill or late or can't make the appointment? You're back in the situation where staff member is refusing to attend alone and cancelling last minute, making the company look unprofessional.

Plus just because YOUR industry has lots of available juniors "gagging" to shadow staff doesn't mean everywhere does - in most places juniors are never "in between roles" just sitting around twiddling their thumbs, but have their own full workload to get on with.

Shadowing staff isn't an amazing new concept only your company has ever thought of - it usually is something most companies and offices do as standard but not constantly - if it was such a good development opportunity to follow someone around - not once or twice but to EVERY SINGLE external meeting this woman is involved with it would already be part of their training. Accompanying her once might be helpful, doing it every single time will be extraneous, and the bottom line is most companies will consider it a waste of time, effort and money for two people to do a job where only one is needed!

"Discrimination 100%" Really?
"You have to provide a female chaperone"
Really?

Herein lies a lot of the UK's problems. This attitude demonstrates why there is a need to protect characteristics.

Wow.

Biological sex and gender are protected characteristics and should (especially biological sex) ALWAYS be protected above religious ideology. It would be more reasonable to say that the UK's problem is that religious bad actors (most denominations) think they can override the hard won rights of women to equality and/or assert control over women's bodily autonomy. Unquestioning faith in situations like the above is dangerous and backward. There should be zero tolerance for tolerating misogynic and/or archaic practices which conflict with the rights of biological woman.

Gender is not a protected characteristic

gender reassignment if you want to be pedantic. Biological sex should trump gender reassignment but thats another matter.

Not being pedantic at all. It matters. Gender isn't a protected characteristic, gender identity isn't one either, just gender reassignment

Biology matters.

I'm not sure why you're arguing with me. I agree with you. But the wording of the law also matters, and we've had people trying to slip in the idea that gender is protected for too long, we can't do the same ourselves!

👍

So what now? How does this get resolved?

Any update @GelatinousDynamo?