EAT RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION
C was employed as a security guard by R at a site in Highgate where R had a contract with Land Securities Trillium to provide safety and security services. Trillium required a specified number of security officers to be on site for the full duration of operating hours. Thus all security officers working at the site were required to remain on site throughout their shifts. C, a Muslim, was refused permission to leave the site on Fridays in the middle of the day to attend a mosque in Finsbury Park. Apart from financial penalties the continuation of the contract was in danger if a full complement of security staff was not on site throughout. R offered C a variety of alternatives to meet his requirements but C refused them all. C claimed religious discrimination, both direct (in respect of other matters) and indirect (in respect of the subject matter of the appeal). The ET dismissed his claim in this regard. C appealed.
Held: Appeal dismissed. R’s provision, criterion or practice was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Judges:
Reid QC J
Citations:
[2011] UKEAT 0379 – 11 – 2405
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440155