Children driven to school by their mothers will be turned away.

[iWantToBeAlone]

Standard link.

It's an Orthodox Jewish school in north London. I hope that law steps in, I don't see how this can be legal.

Although tbf, neither of these men where being interviewed for jobs in the money making department of the company. I just think she felt massively offended and worried what would happen when either had to meet with a female client.

In dh's large organisation (vague) they have on two occasions racially discriminated against Orthodox Jews during interview and refused to even consider them for the job. On both occasions it was because neither man would shake the hand of dh's boss. One even explained it was in case she was menstuating

I don't think you can call that racial discrimination. They didn't get the job because they practised sexist discrimination (they wouldn't shake hands with a woman?) rather than because they were a particular race. IT's not at all the same thing.

Winter, it is racial discrimination when the behaviour they displays was intrinsically linked to their race or their interpretation of their race. Her and DH are both lawyers and both agreed it was shaky ground. If it was as simple as him displaying sexism at interview then they'd be free to tell him straight why he didn't get the job.

Problem is, Lotta, she was breaking the law.

I'm not sure she was. It would take an employment tribunal to sort it out. If one of the requirements of the job is to interface with customers, then someone who chooses to behave in a way which will alienate customers is not necessarily fit for the job. The employer might be bound to make reasonable adjustments, but customers aren't (ie, if you turn up to sell me stuff and refuse to shake my hand, I can either sling you out of my office or refuse to buy your stuff and you don't have a legal hand leg to stand on - discrimination legislation applies to the offering of services and to employment, not to purchasing decisions).

The argument that a salesman shouldn't be employed if he can't sell doesn't seem unreasonable, and even if the reason for that "can't sell" might pass as direct or indirect discrimination, to what extent is the employer liable to employ dead wood?

Sure, an employer who claimed all his customers were racist and therefore he couldn't employ black salesmen without losing money might struggle to get his case over at the ensuing ET (if it happened, which it wouldn't). The case of the hairdresser who got sued

But being black is a hell of a lot more fundamental to someone who is black than not shaking hands is to either being Jewish or practicing Judaism, aside from anything else because the vast majority of Jews wouldn't recognise this behaviour.

There's the case of the woman who lost an ET for refusing to employ a hairdresser who wore a headscarf, but (a) it looked like the complainant was trolling and (b) had she tried it on with a larger company they would have appealed and she would probably have lost.

Well namechange, I'm not a lawyer but both DH and his boss are and they both thought it was shaky ground in terms of racial discrimination. They're both in house though as it's a large international financial company so neither are working in employment law day to day.

So who will pay the fine for the dc not going to school?? You know..... The fines us parents outside of Stamford (step ford?)hill would be threatened with....

shaky ground in terms of racial discrimination

Saying "employees have to be willing to shake the hands of women even menstruating ones" clearly isn't direct discrimination.

Indirect discrimination would require you to prove that it was closely linked to a protected characteristic. What proportion of Jews (protected characteristic: race) hold this position? Extremely small. What proportion of Jews (pc: religion) hold this position? Extremely small.

The case of the nurse in Exeter who claimed that she was being discriminated against by not being allowed to wear a cross around her neck failed, because she wasn't able to show that being a Christian (pc: religion) mandated it, or that it was a position widely held by Christians (there's also an irony in that she was a member of a sect which was formed in opposition to outward ostentation in religion, but let that pass). Cases about covering forearms versus infection control in hospitals have pretty much all failed on "reasonable adjustment" grounds (ie, the adjustments required aren't reasonable). Proving that not shaking hands with women is an intrinsic part of being Jewish is going to be pretty tricky, mostly because it isn't.

And I assume someone upthread has pointed out that if a state-run Muslim-majority school tried anything similar, it would be in special measures in seconds. This is going to cause massive entertainment on the British Values, counter-Extremism, etc front.

Compare and contrast with this:

www.theguardian.com/education/2015/may/28/fury-after-primary-pupils-are-asked-to-complete-radicalisation-seeking-surveys

Nope. You can't use one call of discrimination to cancel out another.
If you hired someone that you knew was going to discriminate against women in the workplace, you would be liable for that. It is absolutely ok to not employ someone because you cannot allow certain practices in the work place. Its not about their race or religion, but how they have chosen to practice it.
Example, I advertise a job as mon to fri 9 til 5pm. I need those hours and only those hours worked. You interview and tell me that due to your religion (which is linked to your race) you cannot work wednesday morning through to thursday lunchtime. I don't give you the job because you can't do it. That isn't religious or racial discrimination, thats you choosing to not be suitable for the job.

Similarly I am fine not to hire you if you are going to refuse to work with women on an equal basis to men, because you have chosen to put your religious practice above the laws of the land and basic workplace etiquette.

No shaky ground at all.

That isn't religious or racial discrimination, thats you choosing to not be suitable for the job.

I suggest that before you try this, you get legal advice. That's indirect discrimination, and at the ET you would have to show that "need those hours and only those hours worked" is actually true of that particular individual role, and that a reasonable adjustment wouldn't be possible. Get ready to answer questions about "what happens when they are on annual leave?" and "what would you do if they fell sick?" and "would you consider a job share?".

Otherwise you're straight into "we refuse all requests for part time working and flexible working" territory, and ETs (and EATs, which make precedent) have routinely held that to be indirect discrimination against women and those with family responsibilities (both protected characteristics).

Your point that you can't allow your staff to engage in discrimination just because they themselves hold that activity to be wrong is well made, and saying "I won't employ people whose behaviour may land me in court for discrimination, even if they claim that refusal to employ is itself discriminatory" is OK (the Lalelle case, spelling probably wrong, about the registrar who refused to perform civil partnerships probably applies). But unless you're a tiny company, refusal to even consider flexibility over hours is a fast track to an ET that you are highly likely to lose.

Oh well, I'll let her know next time I see her. Maybe it's because she's American and therefore more nervous of a litigious outcome. But DH isn't and he agreed with her that it was best not to say why they would not consider him for the job. They're quite a well known public facing company so maybe they wanted to avoid such a claim even if it wouldn't be successful. I'll ask him when he's home on tue. Both he and I had worked with and socialised with a number of Jewish people before this incident and neither of us had ever heard of such a barrier, even from Jews we knew/know to be quite religious so it's obviously a tiny tiny faction.

Anyone, the family I worked for were EXACTLY the same sect - Belzer Chassidim: the dad rushing off late to the synagogue on a Friday night in a gabardine and a streimel.

Either they've got a lot more closed off during the last 25 years, or the article is blowing things out of proportion (have not heard the radio, been working all day). And yes, in any group there will be people who are utterly unreasonable, and yes, deeply conservative religions limit women's choices, but I know enough not to tar all the Belzers (and certainly not all orthodox Jews) with the same brush.

*I live in NE London, very close to a large Jewish community, and without meaning to be incredibly offensive (although I am) I find it a very bizarre insular religion. They have different ambulances, their own shops, public transport, and even a different section of the bank, as the most extreme believers won't speak to a non-Jew. For me, as someone who doesn't follow any religion, all they are doing is teaching their children to be sexist, rude and judgemental.

I find it a very difficult religion to understand, completely prehistoric and unfitting with modern society.*

That's the whole of Judaism written off, then? Or do you mean one particular, unrepresentative sect? Because talking about Judaism as 'unfitting with modern society' is not really what you meant, is it?

I am as appalled as anybody by faith groups that forbid women from fully participating in society. But this is not comparable to FGM and it is not typical of Judaism. I don't see that there is much anyone can do about a sect that makes its own behaviour codes for its members, when membership of that sect is voluntary (yes, I understand it's not that easy to leave, but still it is not legally coercive).

What can be done is to address the SCHOOL that is trying to enforce this rule. That is beyond the powers of the school and I understand that action is being taken on this. I fully support that.

You don't have to consider flexibility over hours if its not appropriate for your business. If my business is only open mon-fri 9 til 5 and only needs one person, I am entirely within my rights to not be flexible on closing for a weds afternoon and thursday morning so as to accommodate someone elses religious beliefs!

Devora, I think the overwhelming majority of posters on this thread have stated quite clearly that in their experience, this most definitely is not representative of Judaism.

Yes devora I was referring to the extremist sect that I live close too- I wouldn't be as ignorant to tar everyone with the same brush

This is undoubted discrimination and action could be taken on behalf of the child who suffers as a result of it. The trouble is, any parent who does this knows they will be ostracised anyway so unfortunately it's not going to happen unless the parent in question is willing to give up being part of that religious community, in which case they probably don't want their child to stay at that school anyway.

I'm not sure that that would count as racial discrimination, either. If their religion prevents them from doing a part of the job (and they need to greet customers occasionally, and filtering out all the women would be unreasonable) then it would be a reasonable reason to not hire them. Like, say, if someone who uses a wheelchair wants to apply for a job and something like reaching high shelves is a key component of the job that cannot be adapted for: the employer does not have to consider them equally with someone who can fill all the job roles.

If a job can be flexible enough to allow an employee to have every Friday afternoon off for prayer and work at other times, then it's reasonable to expect an employer to adjust for that, and a lot of office jobs would be like that. But if the job cannot be flexible in that way, like, say, most full-time state school teaching jobs, then the employer is not expected to employ someone who cannot work the hours of the job. They might be expected to not schedule essential meetings with that employee after teaching hours on a Friday or put pressure on them to teach an afterschool coursework class on that day, but the teaching hours would be non-negotiable.

Employers only have to make reasonable adjustments, not act as if there is no difference at all.