header-logo header-logo

11 October 2007
Issue: 7292 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

Nose-stud employee reinstated

News

A Hindu woman, sacked from Heathrow Airport for wearing a nose-stud, has been reinstated.

Amrit Lalji had worked as a cleaner and customer relations worker in a VIP lounge for over a year when she was fired for wearing a nose-stud that her employer, Eurest, a catering company, said could be hazardous.
Lalji claimed the jewellery was religious, comparable to a wedding band, but when she refused to remove it she was suspended and later sacked.
Brian Palmer, employment partner at Charles Russell LLP, says Lalji’s reinstatement, which was done before the case went to an employment tribunal in a claim under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1660), was a sensible decision.

He says: “The key point in Lalji’s case is that, although employed by a caterer, her job did not have any involvement with catering. Had the matter gone to tribunal then Eurest would have had to seek to justify the requirement for the removal of jewellery set against the job which Lalji carried out. That would have been difficult to achieve.”

Palmer adds: “While employers may consider that a blanket policy applied equally to all employees may offer them the best protection against potential discrimination claims, thought has to be given to policies and the rationale behind them for their enforcement to be successful and non-discriminatory.”

Issue: 7292 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
back-to-top-scroll