Updated to include information on Gareddu v London Underground Ltd, in which the EAT considered the issue of time off to attend religious festivals.
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.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld an employment tribunal decision that the claimant's assertion that his beliefs required him to take a block of five weeks' leave to attend religious festivals was not genuine.
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.
In Pendleton v Derbyshire County Council and another  IRLR 580 EAT, the EAT held that the dismissal of an Anglican Christian teacher who refused to leave her husband, who had been convicted and sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment for making indecent images of children and voyeurism, was unfair and indirect religion or belief discrimination.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to indirect religion or belief discrimination.