A nursery which objected to the length of a Muslim job applicant’s jilbab did not behave in a discriminatory manner, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has found. The nursery had a health and safety requirement to ensure that clothing worn by its staff did not constitute a tripping hazard. This rule was not inherently discriminatory toward Muslim women.

A jilbab is a floor-length garment that covers a woman’s entire body leaving only the face and hands exposed.

The job applicant, Ms Begum, belonged to the Muslim faith and she wore a jilbab and hijab. Ms Begum applied to Barley Lane Montessori Day Nursery for an apprenticeship. During the interview for the apprenticeship, the manager of the nursery noticed that the jilbab worn by Ms Begum was covering her shoes and touching the floor. The manager considered the length of the garment to be a tripping hazard and asked Ms Begum whether she could wear a shorter jilbab while at work. It was a common practice among other Muslim women working at the nursery to wear a shorter jilbab at work and then change into a longer jilbab after work.

Ms Begum considered that the request to wear a shorter jilbab went against her beliefs and she declined the offer to work at the nursery. She subsequently brought a claim in the Employment Tribunal complaining of indirect discrimination on the grounds of her religion. The claim did not succeed and she appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

In dismissing the appeal the EAT confirmed that the Tribunal had reached the correct decision. The EAT agreed with the Tribunal that the nursery had not sought to prevent Ms Begum from wearing a jilbab but from wearing a garment whose length could pose a risk to health and safety.

The Tribunal had determined that the relevant PCP (provision, criterion or practice) for the purposes of assessing the claim of indirect religious discrimination was not a rule that Muslim women could not wear a jilbab, as Ms Begum had argued, bur rather the requirement that members of staff dress in ways that did not endanger their health and safety, or that of their work colleagues or the children in their care.

“The Claimant was permitted to wear a jilbab, even full-length, providing it did not constitute a tripping hazard. Whatever length the jilbab worn to the interview was, it was reasonably contended to be a tripping hazard.” Employment Appeal Tribunal

Photograph: “At the play school” by Markus Spiske / raumrot.com