Azmi v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 30 March 2007 |
| Date | 30 March 2007 |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Before Mr Justice Wilkie, Mr P. Smith and Mr S. Yeboah
A Muslim teaching assistant who had been suspended for disobeying an instruction not to wear a veil when assisting a male teacher was not discriminated against directly or indirectly on the ground of religion or belief.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal so held when dismissing an appeal by the claimant, Mrs A Azmi, from a decision of a Leeds employment tribunal on October 12, 2006 that her employers, Kirklees Metropolitan Council, had not discriminated against her contrary to the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations (SI 2003 No 1660) or Council Directive 2000/78/EC (OJ 2000 L303/16).
Mr Declan O'Dempsey for the claimant; Mr Peter Oldham for Kirklees.
MR JUSTICE WILKIE, giving the reserved judgment of the appeal tribunal, said that the claimant worked at Headfield Church of England (Controlled) Junior School, Dewsbury, as a bilingual support worker.
She was a devout Muslim who wore a long dress and a veil covering her head and face except for her eyes when in the presence of adult males.
On September 12, 2005 she told the head teacher she was willing to work with male teachers but would have to wear a veil.
During October the council's education service prepared advice to head teachers on the wearing of the veil. It concluded that for teachers or support workers to wear a veil would prevent effective communication.
The head teacher meanwhile had observed her work and had concluded that she would be able to carry out her role more effectively if she were not wearing the veil.
He told the claimant she should not wear the veil when working directly with children. The claimant was not prepared to comply and in February 2006 she was suspended.
Council Directive 2000/78/EC established a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. The 2003 Regulations was the United Kingdom's attempt to pass domestic legislation giving effect to that Directive.
The issues in the case included:
1 Did the wearing of the veil by the claimant, which was a manifestation of her religious belief, come within the provisions relating to direct religious discrimination?
2 Who was the appropriate comparator?
3 Could inferences of religious discrimination be drawn from the council's conduct?
4 Was the requirement that the claimant should be unveiled when communicating with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taking a Bullet: Are Colleges Exposing Themselves to Tort Liability by Attempting to Save Their Students?
...outcry following Virginia 14. See, e.g., John M. Broder, MASSACRE IN VIRGINIA; 32 Shot Dead in Virginia; Worst U.S. Gun Rampage, N.Y. Times, Apr. 17, 2007, at A1, available at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html? res=9F01E1D7113FF934A25757C0A9619C8B63. Also, on February 14, 2008, Nor......