Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Begum v Pedagogy Auras UK Ltd (t/a Barley Lane Montessori Day Nursery) [2015] UKEAT 0309_13_2205
Begum v Pedagogy Auras UK Ltd (t/a Barley Lane Montessori Day Nursery) [2015] UKEAT 0309_13_2205
Published on: 05/06/2015
Issues Covered: Discrimination
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Legal Island
Legal Island
Background

This case concerned a Muslim who was offered a nursery apprenticeship but who wanted to wear a full length a garment that reached from her neck to her ankles (a jilbab). The nursery refused on the ground that it was a tripping hazard. The claimant argued indirect discrimination on grounds of her religious belief. The tribunal found in favour of the employer and the EAT agreed - the policy was grounded in health and safety. No evidence was provided by the claimant that a full length garment (as opposed to a shorter length one proposed by the nursery) was a religious requirement. Even if evidence had been provided, the provision, criterion or practice (PCP) of requiring all employees to wear garments that were not tripping hazards was a reasonable means of achieving a legitimate health and safety aim. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2015/0309_13_2205.html

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 05/06/2015