The power of people analytics – what’s your opinion? Take our 10 minute survey for a chance to win £500.
Updated to include information on Gareddu v London Underground Ltd, in which the EAT considered the issue of time off to attend religious festivals.
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.
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.
We discuss a number of recent cases that concern NHS employers but that could also apply more widely.
The Advocate General has said that it is not direct religious discrimination for an employer with a policy of religious and political neutrality to prevent a Muslim employee from wearing an Islamic headscarf.
In Wasteney v East London NHS Foundation Trust  IRLR 388 EAT, the EAT held that disciplinary proceedings against an employee were taken because she had acted inappropriately by imposing her religious views on a junior employee. She had not suffered unlawful religious discrimination, nor had her human right to manifest her religious belief been breached.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that an employee was subjected to disciplinary proceedings because of her own inappropriate actions, and not because she was manifesting her Christian beliefs.
An employment tribunal has held that the removal of the Koran from a Muslim employee's locker during a locker clearance while he was on paid leave was not religion or belief discrimination.
In DLA Piper's case of the week, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) examined the dividing line between the innocent expression of an employee's religion at work and the inappropriate manifestation of religious beliefs in the workplace that justifies a misconduct charge.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to direct religion or belief discrimination.