The Principle of Employment Law - Case Study Example

The 2004 Regulations clearly state that “it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person . . . on the grounds of religious belief”.  The exact nature of “religious belief” was much debated in the drafting of the Act, but it was apparently kept deliberately vague in order to cover as many cases as possible. If the religious belief directly affects a person’s performance on the job (or lack thereof) then it would appear that an employer cannot be held liable for discrimination if the employee is fired.

Cases

Two recent cases are very relevant to Sandeep’s possible action. In Hazmi vs. Headfield Church of England Junior School, a recent employment tribunal dismissed three claims of discrimination and harassment on religious grounds made by a Muslim woman, Aishah Azmi, who refused to remove her veil in the classroom. The school she was working for sacked her. The main thrust of Azmi’s argument was that she was prepared and even willing to remove her veil in front of children, but not when male colleagues were present. The tribunal agreed that she had been victimized but disagreed with her other claims. It said that her sacking was legitimate.

          Another case, Eweida vs. British Airways involves company policies regarding a dress code. Naida Eweida is a devout Catholic who wore a crucifix pendant on her uniform. British Airways asked her to remove it if she wanted to work in the check-in area, but she refused. The airline offered Eweida a job behind the scenes. She again refused. Eweida lost two levels of appeals against her sacking, but British Airways has since changed its dress code policy to allow the wearing of crosses. This case has yet to be fully resolved. 

Advice to Sandeep

He could bring a case for discrimination based on the 2004 Act, but ethical obligations would require me to advise him that he would be unlikely to win the case. First, the problem of whether his “cult” would be regarded as a real religion for the provisions of the Act to take place would be a problem. Second, the wearing of pink, long hair, and an earring would clearly interfere with his ability to conduct business as a salesman. This is a legitimate concern of his company and it would probably be irrelevant whether his attire was based on his religion/cult beliefs or not. The fact is that he could not function as a successful salesman because of his clothing beliefs. Sandeep should ask for a job within the same company that does not require contact with the public/customers. If the company refuses to rehire him under these circumstances (assuming there are jobs for which Sandeep is qualified) then a discrimination suit might be brought.

 Mike, who works as a receptionist and porter, was diagnosed as suffering from osteoarthritis two years ago. He has never told anyone at work about this. However, his condition is getting worse and it is taking him increasing amounts of time to carry out the portering part of his job. The Head of Customer Relations complains about Mike to Phil, who is Mike's line manager and Phil institutes disciplinary proceedings against Mike.

Legal Principles

The major legal principle here is whether Mike is being discriminated against because of a disability.  The fact that he has told no one about his condition, which is disabling him, makes any chance of winning his case rather remote.

The Law

Under the Disability Discrimination Act of 1995, it is unlawful to discriminate against people because of their disabilities in relation to employment, education, transport, and the provision of goods/services. A chronic and steadily worsening condition such as osteoarthritis would count as a disability under the Act.

Cases

The company has a duty to provide “reasonable adjustments” to his job as shown in a number of Disability Cases including DRC01128, in which 500 pounds was awarded to an employee whose back problems caused poor attendance, DRC011466 in which an employee won her case against dismissal because acute tendonitis was effecting her job performance.

Advice

Mike should inform his employer of his physical condition and the reason for the increasing amounts of time needed for the portering part of his job. He should ask for disciplinary proceedings to stop and for “reasonable adjustment” (Disability Act, 1995) to be given so that his duties could either change or be allowed more time to perform those duties that involve physical work such as portering.