The recruitment process has been drawn out, but finally the firm thinks it has found the right person and the candidate feels his long search is at an end.

It is often at this point that the candidate points out that he has a religious requirement. Perhaps he needs to take a period of time off work to mourn for a dead relative or for a religious festival, be it Eid, Diwali or Rosh Hashanah. Moreover, he may have special dietary needs.


Whether a solicitor is joining a firm as an assistant or partner or going in-house, he is covered by the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. These prevent firms in their role as employers or fellow partners from treating individual solicitors detrimentally on the grounds of their religion, religious belief or similar philosophical beliefs (so-called direct discrimination).


However, they also prevent firms applying practices that appear to be neutral, as between religious groups, but which in fact disadvantage one religious group over another and are not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (indirect discrimination). For example, limiting a period of time off for bereavement to one day would affect Hindus and Jews more severely than members of most Christian denominations.


When assessing proportionality, the tribunals would look both to the impact on the firm and on the individual solicitor. For example, a strict vegetarian, having been offered the job, asks that the canteen provides strictly vegetarian food. It may be proportionate to turn down the request if the cost is significant. Ultimately, the impact of this request not being met is simply that the individual would have to bring in his own food.


By contrast, if an employee is told that he must work on a particular day to service a client, the impact on the firm may be minimal if this request is not met – especially if others can help out.


On the other side of the equation, the employee may contend that he has to resign rather than work on a religious holiday of particular importance.


Another area in which indirect discrimination may occur is the way in which rules on what people wear are applied. Certain forms of social interaction may also be criticised – a Friday night drinking culture disadvantages observant Jews and Muslims for different reasons.


It just becomes a question of proportionality, and certainly it would be asking a lot for a firm to tell staff they cannot go out after work on a Friday for a drink.


At the same time, to ask a firm to hold its office party on a day outside of a religious festival would be entirely legitimate.


Firms need to be sensitive to this new legislation but it would be a mistake to alienate the majority by over-reacting.


See feature


Gareth Brahams is a partner in the employment and incentives department of City firm Lewis Silkin