All items: Indirect discrimination

• expand

  Achbita and another v G4S Secure Solutions [2017] IRLR 466 ECJ (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Religious discrimination: Prohibition of visible signs of belief did not amount to direct discrimination

    Date:

    24 September 2017

    In Achbita and another v G4S Secure Solutions [2017] IRLR 466 ECJ, the ECJ held that an employer's rule prohibiting employees from wearing any visible signs of belief, including the hijab, did not amount to direct discrimination.

  • Indirect discrimination: religious dress ban for public-facing roles can be justified

    Date:

    14 March 2017

    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.

• expand

  Advocate General's opinion in Achbita and another v G4S Secure Solutions [2017] IRLR 466 ECJ (1 report relating to this case)

  • Workplace ban on Muslim headscarves can be legitimate, suggests Advocate General

    Date:

    2 June 2016

    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.

• expand

  Advocate General's opinion in Bougnaoui and another v Micropole SA [2017] IRLR 447 ECJ (1 report relating to this case)

  • Workplace ban on Muslim headscarves is discriminatory, suggests Advocate General

    Date:

    14 July 2016

    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.

• expand

  Azmi v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council [2007] IRLR 484 EAT (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Case of the week: Teaching assistant's appeal fails in veil dispute

    Date:

    17 April 2007

    This week's case of the week, provided by Eversheds, covers religious discrimination.

  • Azmi v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council

    Date:

    2 April 2007

    In Azmi v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council EAT/0009/07, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed an appeal against an employment tribunal's ruling that an employee who was dismissed for refusing to remove her veil while teaching had not been discriminated against on the grounds of religion or belief.

• expand

  Azmi v Kirklees Metropolitan Council [2006] ET/1801450/06 (1 report relating to this case)

  • In the courts

    Date:

    1 December 2006

    This month's round-up of decisions on discrimination from the courts.

• expand

  Begum v Pedagogy Auras UK Ltd t/a Barley Lane Montessori Day Nursery EAT/0309/13 (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Religion or belief: Enquiry about length of Muslim job applicant's jilbab not discriminatory

    Date:

    3 August 2016

    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.

  • No religious discrimination in job interview questions about Muslim interviewee's dress causing trip hazard

    Date:

    3 June 2015

    The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed an appeal against an employment tribunal decision that there was no religious discrimination against a Muslim interviewee who was asked by an interviewer about the potential for her unusually long religious dress to provide a trip hazard.

• expand

  Begum v Pedagogy Auras UK Ltd t/a Barley Lane Montessori Day Nursery ET/320021512/12 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Safety-related questions in job interview about Muslim woman's religious dress were not discriminatory

    Date:

    17 June 2013

    This employment tribunal considered whether or not it was discrimination for a manager with health and safety concerns to ask a Muslim interviewee about her unusually long religious dress.

• expand

  Bougnaoui and another v Micropole SA [2017] IRLR 447 ECJ (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Religious discrimination: Customer's reluctance to accept services of hijab-wearing employee not genuine and determining occupational requirement

    Date:

    24 September 2017

    In Bougnaoui and another v Micropole SA [2017] IRLR 447 ECJ, the ECJ held that an employer in France could not use the reluctance of a customer to deal with any worker wearing an Islamic headscarf to defend the dismissal of a Muslim worker because she wore the hijab.

  • Direct religious discrimination: employer's wish to please customer not a genuine occupational requirement

    Date:

    14 March 2017

    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".

• expand

  Chatwal v Wandsworth Borough Council EAT/0487/10 (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Religious discrimination: Constitution of a sufficient group sharing the claimant's beliefs

    Date:

    27 February 2012

    In Chatwal v Wandsworth Borough Council EAT/0487/10, the EAT held that a tribunal erred by failing properly to consider the evidence that an employee from a branch of Amritdhari Sikhs had established that his beliefs were shared by a sufficient group of people to support his indirect discrimination claim.

  • Religious discrimination: Sikh council worker's refusal to join cleaning rota for communal fridge

    Date:

    11 July 2011

    The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that the employment tribunal had not considered properly the evidence as to whether or not a significant group of Sikhs were disadvantaged by a council's policy that all staff who used of the communal staff kitchen had to join the rota to clean the fridge. 

• expand

  Cherfi v G4S Security Services Ltd EAT/0379/10 (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Religious discrimination: Refusal to permit Friday lunchtime attendance at mosque was justified

    Date:

    20 December 2011

    In Cherfi v G4S Security Services Ltd EAT/0379/10, the EAT held that an employer's refusal for business reasons to allow a Muslim security guard to leave the workplace to attend a mosque on Fridays was proportionate and justified. Accordingly, it did not amount to unlawful indirect religious discrimination.

  • Refusal to allow security guard to attend mosque on Friday at lunchtime was not indirect religious discrimination

    Date:

    3 June 2011

    The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that a refusal to allow a Muslim guard to attend a mosque during working hours, which would have jeopardised his employer's commercial contract to provide security services, was not indirect religious discrimination.