Yes, held the EAT in Begum v Pedagogy Auras UK Ltd t/a Barley Lane Montessori Day Nursery.
Ms Begum, who applied for a post as a nursery assistant, felt obliged by her religion to wear a jilbab, a flowing outer garment covering her from neck to ankle. At her interview, she was asked if she could wear a shorter garment for work, as the jilbab she was wearing was seen as a trip-hazard.
Ms Begum complained of discrimination. The employment tribunal found that the provision, criterion or practice ('PCP') in relation to dress did not put Muslim women at a disadvantage, because an ankle-length jilbab would have been acceptable. There was no evidence given of a religious requirement to wear a floor-length garment. Alternatively, if the PCP did put Muslim women at a disadvantage, it was justified in any event.
The EAT declined to interfere with the employment tribunal’s conclusions: there was no error of law in its approach, nor perversity in its factual findings.
Post a Comment