Veitch Penny LLP - Exeter | Crediton, Devon

Case

Mohmed v Virgin Trains Limited
London Central Employment Tribunal (11th January 2005)

Issues

(1) Unfair dismissal
(2) Racial discrimination
(3) Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003

Facts

Mohsin Mohmed was employed as a customer services assistant by Virgin Trains Limited at Euston Station in London.

Mr Mohmed made claims of Unfair Dismissal, Racial Discrimination and a breach of the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003 (“the Regulations”). The Regulations make direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, victimisation and harassment unlawful on grounds of religion or belief.

The claims related to Virgin’s rules about standards of dress. Mr Mohmed was offered a job with the company after agreeing to trim his beard which at the time was about 20 centimetres long. This was in line with the company’s “neat and tidy” facial hair rules. He was also given permission to wear a religious head covering providing it was in company colours. Mr Mohmed claimed that he was dismissed at the end of his probationary period because he had refused to trim his beard shorter than ten centimetres (the minimum length required by his Islamic faith) and this his request to wear a religious skull cap had been refused.

The company denied discriminating Mr Mohmed and argued that he had been dismissed at the end of his probationary period for poor performance.

Decision

The tribunal rejected Mr Mohmed’s claims of unfair dismissal and religious discrimination. On the evidence, which included his probationary period reviews, the Tribunal accepted that the dismissal was purely based on poor performance and there was no evidence that the real reason was his religion. It also found that no indirect discrimination had occurred. The Tribunal had noted that the company had tried to accommodate Mr Mohmed’s religious beliefs by being asked to keep his shortened beard in a neat and tidy fashion and by being advised that he could wear a religious skull cap as long as it matched the company’s corporate colours.

Comments

This is one of the first cases to be based on the new Regulations which have been in force for just over a year. It serves as a useful reminder to employers that where they are trying to accommodate faith and observance needs, the best way to avoid claims is by temporary adjustment or other means. Where this is not possible it is vital that there is a sound justification for not doing so, which must be recorded. It is vital that employers maintain good notes of any meetings with employees, clearly setting out a clear time frame for improvement.

Rachel Bickle – Associate Solicitor, Commercial Department at Veitch Penny.
Tel: 01392 278381, Fax: 01392 410247, Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it