make the news of late, the veil and not only in the form of Jack Straw, the Commission, which sensationalised by the media.
Azmi has been widely reported against Kirklees Metropolitan Council, in which the Council is relieved of the direct and indirect discrimination on the basis that the plaintiff does not show that she was directly discriminated against and not treated less favorably than a comparator in similar circumstances (non-Muslim workers, under his / her face to say with a Balaclava or associations). They decided that these people are also exposed, as these garments would be a barrier to effective learning, because their faces and mouths would be concealed. The court took the view that these were important for children with English as a second language in the perspective of facial gestures and mouth disease was important, the linguistic development.
Ms Azmi is a bilingual support workers on 1 September 2005 for refusing to wear a veil, on her entire body except eyes exposed to when working with children in a classroom.
The Employment Tribunal found that the employer had a legitimate goal, in the instruction of language learning and the means of achieving this objective were appropriate. The results were that the Council adopted a comprehensive consultation and advice from an education specialist in childhood, confirmed the development, visual signals are important for learning a language. Also, the school and the supervisor. More Ms Azmi on her interview jabbah not worn (dress) and niqab (veil), but a tunic and headscarf and had no reference to this important to her Orthodox faith.
There was, however, the employer had unfairly in dealing with her illness and not a complaint and an award for injury to feelings, together with an increase of 10% is not in accordance with the statutory appeal procedures.
This is a very topical issue in the multicultural society in which we live today, and we can expect more of the same in the near future in view of the challenges for the school uniform and dress codes.
If an employer is a legitimate goal, in such a statement and if such a restriction was proportionate needs they have nothing to fear discrimination law.
0 ความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น