Can employers refuse to allow employees to take time off to attend prayers?

In the two cases below, the refusals of the employers to allow Muslims time off on Friday lunchtimes to attend mosque were held to be objectively justified. Not every such refusal will be justified; justification will always depend on the facts.

In Cherfi v G4S Security Services Ltd UKEAT/0379/10, the claimant, Mr Cherfi, worked as a security guard at a client site. His employer would face financial penalties and be at risk of losing the client contract if it failed to ensure that the requisite number of security guards were on site throughout operational hours. It therefore required the security guards to remain on site at lunchtimes, for which they were paid. When Mr Cherfi complained, the employer offered to change his contract to a Monday to Thursday pattern with the option of Saturday or Sunday work. However, he was not prepared to work at the weekend. He brought an indirect discrimination claim, pointing out that the employer's requirement placed Muslims at a particular disadvantage. A tribunal rejected his claim. Balancing the employer's operational needs with the discriminatory effect on Mr Cherfi, the tribunal found that the requirement for security guards to remain on site was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. On appeal, the EAT upheld the tribunal's decision.

In Mayuuf v Governing Body of Bishop Challoner Catholic Collegiate School and another ET/3202398/04, the claimant, a maths teacher, was a member of the Maliki School of Islam. According to his beliefs, it was essential that he attend prayers at a mosque every Friday, and that it would be a matter of the utmost seriousness should he miss more than two Fridays in a row. During the 2002/2003 school year, the School allowed him a free period on a Friday afternoon (period 5) in order to attend prayers. However, in the 2003/2004 school year, the School required him to teach year 11 maths at that time. Mr Mayuuf brought an indirect discrimination claim. The tribunal found that the school's actions were objectively justified. It balanced the discriminatory effect on Mr Mayuuf against the following factors: there had been declining standards in GCSE maths and new arrangements had been put in place; it was essential to those arrangements that all the year 11 maths classes take place at the same time, so that pupils could be moved up or down between sets according to ability; it would have been practically impossible to rewrite the timetable to free up period 5; providing a supply teacher would have affected the continuity of education and would, as a secondary consideration, have been too costly.