EAT RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION
The Claimant was offered an apprenticeship (trainee nursery assistant) at the Respondent’s nursery. She was an observant Muslim whose religious belief required her to wear a garment that reached from her neck to her ankles (a jilbab). She claimed that she had suffered a detriment by reason of the manifestation of her religious belief because she had been told that she would not be permitted to wear a jilbab of the appropriate length and therefore was unable to accept the post. The Employment Tribunal dismissed the claim on the facts. It held that the Claimant had not been instructed that she could not wear a jilbab of the appropriate length but held that if wrong as to that, the PCP (Provision, Custom or Practice) propounded by the Claimant applied. Staff should not wear any garments that might constitute a tripping hazard to themselves or the children in their care – it was not indirectly discriminatory to Muslim women. It applied equally to staff of all religions and if it did put some Muslim women at a particular disadvantage, any indirect discrimination was justified as being a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim: i.e. protecting the health and safety of staff and children.
Held by the Employment Appeal Tribunal that the Employment Tribunal had reached conclusions to which it was entitled to reach on the facts as found. There was no misdirection of law by the Employment Tribunal. In essence this was a perversity appeal that failed to surmount the high threshold required in such appeals.
Serota QC HHJ
[2015] UKEAT 0309 – 13 – 2205
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547131