Employee refused time off to visit mosque was not discriminated against

A recent EAT judgment has ruled that a Muslim employee who was refused permission to leave site on a Friday to attend prayers at a mosque was not discriminated against on the grounds of his religion.

In the case of Mr Cherfi v. G4S Security Services Ltd, the claimant was employed as a security guard.  Whilst working at a site in Euston, he left work every Friday lunchtime to attend prayers at the local mosque.  The company’s contract at Euston came to an end and the claimant was then based mainly at a Job Centre Plus site at Archway.  He continued to leave the premises on Friday lunchtimes to attend the mosque.

The claimant was subsequently refused permission to leave the site at lunchtimes, as the respondent’s client required a security presence for the full duration of the shift.  A failure on the part of the respondent to comply with its service provision agreement would result in financial penalties and put the continuation of the contract at risk.  The respondent suggested that it could alter the claimant’s working pattern to Monday to Thursday, with the option to work either a Saturday or Sunday.  The claimant was not prepared to accept this arrangement.

The claimant brought a claim of indirect religious discrimination, on the basis that his employer’s requirement for him to remain on site put him at a disadvantage as a practising Muslim.  His claim was dismissed by the Employment Tribunal.  The EAT agreed that the respondent could justify the requirement that the claimant remained on site on a Friday, and that his claim for indirect religious discrimination should not succeed.

Sally Andrews, a Legal Executive at Steeles Law, commented:

“This case is a further demonstration that individuals have no absolute right to manifest their religious beliefs in the workplace.

"The Employment Tribunal and the EAT were clearly satisfied that the employer’s reasons for requiring its security staff to stay on site were both legitimate and proportionate.  The potential financial consequences to the respondent were described as ‘substantial’, both in terms of the penalties imposed and the prospect of losing the contract altogether if staff were not present for the entire shift. 

“It was also accepted that it was financially impractical to provide cover by another security guard during the lunch break.  The employer had demonstrated that it had considered ways of reducing the impact on the claimant, by suggesting alterations to his working pattern. 

“Employers facing a similar issue should ensure that they consider all the possible options in order to properly assess whether an individual’s request can be accommodated, and suggest any practical measures that can help ameliorate the impact on the employee.”