Aye, but Islam as a political force and Islam as a religion is at the crux of the problem init?To get back to the OP, discrimination in employment law is predicated around selecting someone on their ability to do the job. By it's very nature a job selection process is discriminatory so it is a minefield.I have interviewed many times and the criteria is always: 1. can they do the job, 2. will they do the job and 3. will they fit in?Parts 1 & 2 are in truth sanity checks to make sure the candidate hasn't been telling whoppers on their CV. The third question is the critical issue.In my time I have rejected a strict Jew (couldn't work Friday evenings after sunset, a problem for a Database Administrator), someone very personable and qualified with a nose stud and pink hair (I work in the Lloyds Insurance Market - conservative doesn't start to describe the attitudes to turn-out) and an obvious and exceptionaly camp homosexual.The first 2 are no-brainers; they weren't suitable and they had ruled themselves out of selection. The third - more tricky. The team the position was for was VERY macho and I could see such a camp person causing a great deal of friction. Not fair on on those in the team, and certainly not fair on the candidate if I knowingly subjected them to a hostile working atmosphere. Discrimination - quite possible, but balanced against the probability of an Unfair Dismissal claim for bullying it was the only option open to me.Had I rejected any of the candidates because "I didn't like Jews, we don't employ freaks or I can't stand Screaming Queens" then it wouldn't have been lawful, and quite rightly too.Getting back to the case in point - if I visit my tailor I don't expect to see him turned out in a Marks & Sparks suit. In a customer facing business how staff interact with the punters is critical.I suspect the plaintiff in question is one of the 'Political Islam' faction, and I personally hope she loses. And is held for the Defendants costs.
Gavin Gilbert ● 6818d