Author: Dennis Chapman
Published: March 3, 2014
Reading time: 1 minute
This article is 10 years old.
Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down
This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.
The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.
The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.
Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.
If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.
All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.
Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.
Two Muslims who worked for a supermarket chain, have recently won a Religious Discrimination case because they were restricted as to when they could use their designated prayer room.
Having lobbied for and obtained a prayer room back in 2008, the room was open for all staff to use throughout the working day. However in 2012, management set new restrictions that the room would be locked and employees would have to ask for the keys from a member of management and sign in and out of the prayer room. Also employees were only allowed to pray one at a time and not in a group, when previously this had not been an issue.
The Tribunal held that the Employers policy was indirectly discriminatory and awarded compensation to each employee.
