Key facts of the case - The claimant, a Muslim, was employed as a bilingual support worker at a Church of England school controlled by the respondent council. She was accustomed to wear a veil (niqab) which covered her head and face, except for her eyes, when in the presence of adult males. When applying for the job she had glowing references and performed well at the interview. At the job interview and the training day, she did not wear a veil and had not indicated that her religious beliefs required her to wear a veil or placed any limitation on her working. Her request to wear a veil when teaching with male teachers was refused by the council’s education department on the ground that obscuring the face and mouth impeded effective communication with the pupils. Her request not to have to work with male co-workers was also refused by the school. She was instructed to be unveiled at all times in the classroom, although it was conceded that she could continue to wear her veil in communal areas of the school. The claimant refused to remove her veil and was suspended for disobeying an instruction.
She made a claim to an employment tribunal that she had been discriminated against directly and indirectly on grounds of her religion, contrary to regulation 3(1)(a) and (b) of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 (applying Council Directive 2000/78/EC). The employment tribunal dismissed the claims. It concluded that the correct comparator for the purposes of the direct discrimination claim was a person who was not of the Muslim religion and who covered her face for whatever reason and that any such comparator would also have been suspended. A provision, criterion, or practice not to wear clothing which interfered unduly with the ability to communicate, while indirectly discriminatory in that it put Muslims at a disadvantage, was lawful as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim within regulation 3(1)(b)(iii).
The claimant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

Main reasoning of the court - The claimant, a Muslim, was employed as a bilingual support worker at a Church of England school controlled by the respondent council. She was accustomed to wear a veil (niqab) which covered her head and face, except for her eyes, when in the presence of adult males. When applying for the job she had glowing references and performed well at the interview. At the job interview and the training day, she did not wear a veil and had not indicated that her religious beliefs required her to wear a veil or placed any limitation on her working. Her request to wear a veil when teaching with male teachers was refused by the council’s education department on the ground that obscuring the face and mouth impeded effective communication with the pupils. Her request not to have to work with male co-workers was also refused by the school. She was instructed to be unveiled at all times in the classroom, although it was conceded that she could continue to wear her veil in communal areas of the school. The claimant refused to remove her veil and was suspended for disobeying an instruction.
She made a claim to an employment tribunal that she had been discriminated against directly and indirectly on grounds of her religion, contrary to regulation 3(1)(a) and (b) of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 (applying Council Directive 2000/78/EC). The employment tribunal dismissed the claims. It concluded that the correct comparator for the purposes of the direct discrimination claim was a person who was not of the Muslim religion and who covered her face for whatever reason and that any such comparator would also have been suspended. A provision, criterion, or practice not to wear clothing which interfered unduly with the ability to communicate, while indirectly discriminatory in that it put Muslims at a disadvantage, was lawful as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim within regulation 3(1)(b)(iii).
The claimant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

Comment - This case remains the most prominent one to date in UK law concerning the question of a full face veil, the niqab, in an employment context. As the EAT noted, there was considerable press and public interest in the outcome of the case which resulted in the claimant not attending the hearing.