Editor's message: Your organisation should accommodate religious observance wherever reasonably possible as a failure to do so may constitute indirect discrimination.
For example, a requirement in your dress code that Muslim women must not wear a hijab while working would be unlawful unless you can show that the discriminatory effect of the requirement on Muslim women is outweighed by a non-discriminatory reason for imposing the requirement.
Stephen Simpson, principal employment law editor
We provide a mid-year round-up of key employment law cases in 2017.
Updated to include information on Gareddu v London Underground Ltd, in which the EAT considered the issue of time off to attend religious festivals.
Recent European court judgments have suggested that employers can justify a ban on employees wearing certain religious items. But what do these cases mean for employers drawing up dress codes and will Brexit affect how they are interpreted in future?
With the Conservative Government announcing a snap election for 8 June, we look at five potential problems when politics mix with the workplace.
Consultant editor Darren Newman explains the importance of the Supreme Court's recent decision in two joined indirect discrimination cases.
The Supreme Court has held that an incremental pay structure that put Muslim chaplains in the prison service at a disadvantage compared to their Christian colleagues was indirectly discriminatory, but was justified.
The European Court of Justice has held that a direct religious discrimination claim in which an employee who wears an Islamic headscarf is dismissed to appease a customer cannot be defended on the basis of a "genuine and determining occupational requirement".
The European Court of Justice has held that a ban on religious dress that prevents a Muslim woman from wearing an Islamic headscarf when in contact with clients cannot be directly discriminatory, but is potentially indirectly discriminatory.
In this week's podcast, we explore the steps that you can take to reduce the risk of having an indirectly discriminatory provision, criterion or practice. We also discuss what to take into account when deciding whether or not indirect discrimination can be justified.
Updated to include information on Gareddu v London Underground Ltd, affirming that an employer was entitled to turn down an employee’s request for a long period of time off for religious festivals.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to religion or belief discrimination.