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
What were the most significant employment case law decisions in 2016? Stephen Simpson counts down the 10 most important judgments for employers this year.
Cases on appeal provides news on key case law developments that are expected.
In this case about discrimination in the provision of goods and services, the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal has held that a Christian bakery committed direct sexual orientation discrimination when it refused to fulfil an order for a cake featuring a message in support of same-sex marriage.
Updated to include information on Jeffery v The British Council, in which the EAT identified the main factors that connected an expatriate employee working in Bangladesh to Great Britain and British employment law.
A table listing the religious discrimination awards made by employment tribunals in 2015/16.
The requirement to speak English at work and dress codes at work are policy areas where employers should tread carefully to avoid discrimination. Deborah Bulman, a senior associate from Burges Salmon LLP, considers recent legal controversies and gives tips on drafting employment policies.
In Harron v Chief Constable of Dorset Police  IRLR 481 EAT, the EAT allowed the employee's appeal against the ruling that his passionate belief in efficient use of public money did not constitute a "philosophical belief", on the basis that it was unclear if the tribunal had properly applied the necessary criteria. The issue was remitted to the tribunal for fresh consideration.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ordered the employment tribunal to reconsider whether or not a claimant's philosophical belief in the "proper and efficient use of public money in the public sector" is protected under the Equality Act 2010. Kate Hodgkiss explains the EAT's decision.
In Begum v Pedagogy Auras UK Ltd t/a Barley Lane Montessori Day Nursery EAT/0309/13, the EAT upheld an employment tribunal decision that there was no religious discrimination against a Muslim interviewee who was asked by the interviewer if she could wear religious clothing that did not present a trip hazard.
The Advocate General has suggested that an employer cannot have a blanket ban on religious dress that prevents a Muslim woman from wearing an Islamic headscarf when in contact with clients.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to religion or belief discrimination.