The concept of reasonable accommodation is developing into a highly debated issue. It has been debated in the Supreme Court (Bull v Hall in 2013), by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (the report on ‘Religion or belief in the workplace: an explanation of recent European Court of Human Rights judgments’) and by the European Court of Human Rights (Eweida and Others v The United Kingdom in 2013). Alidadi's contribution is therefore timely. The monograph argues for an enforceable right to reasonable accommodation on the grounds of religion and belief in the workplace. It does so in two ways. Part I attempts to analyse the legal frameworks in place under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 (ECHR) and the protection against discrimination on the basis of religion under the EU Employment Equality Directive 2000/78/EC. Part II turns to analyse the relevant Belgian, Dutch and British cases involving religion and belief for employees in the private sector workplace.
By using a comparative and socio-legal approach, Alidadi gives detailed attention to the much-debated concept of reasonable accommodation. He analyses the relevant religious liberty law in the case law of the three European jurisdictions mentioned above, and further draws upon legal insights from other jurisdictions (Canada and the United States) where a duty of reasonable accommodation based on religion is operative. Alidadi does so in order to ‘shed light on the current European state of play and possible future developments’ (p 9). This really highlights the purpose of the work: it analyses what has come before, in order to make suggestions for future possible developments.
As the title of the book infers, Alidadi supports the introduction of reasonable accommodation. For instance, following the important decision in Eweida, he argues that this is to be considered a ‘resuscitation’ of Article 9 of the ECHR and is one that creates momentum to turn the positive duties under Article 9 of the ECHR into a de facto reasonable accommodation duty (p 231). His work builds upon this argument and claims to offer the first book-length treatment of reasonable accommodation. As such, it gives a powerful argument in favour of reasonable accommodation.
Alidadi asserts that reasonable accommodation is not currently in force (p 12) but he does not consider recent important judgments in English law that have directly considered reasonable accommodation, and recent comments suggesting that English law is moving to engage with reasonable accommodation. His work does not take into account Lady Hale's recent focus upon the issue in English law, in both Bull v Hall and Greater Glasgow Health Board v Doogan (2014), two cases that are not considered in the text. Lady Hale has additionally written extra-judicially and given a number of talks invoking the issue of reasonable accommodation. Although she rejected introducing reasonable accommodation in Bull v Hall, she has since stated that ‘both in discrimination and in human rights law there is developing a principle of reasonable accommodation’.Footnote 2 Writing in this journal in 2015, Lady Hale further considered that ‘employers and other providers may be expected to make reasonable adjustments to their rules and practices to accommodate the religious beliefs of their employees’.Footnote 3
A further problem is that Alidadi removes religious liberty from traditional debates about freedom of conscience and does not provide any definition of ‘religious liberty’. Nowhere is there a discussion about what is a legitimate response to restrictions on religious conscience. As reasonable accommodation seeks to remedy restrictions imposed on religious conscience, the work could benefit from more discussion about these restrictions.
Chapters 1 to 4 introduce the relevant statutory and case law involving religion and belief. Focus is given to the manifestation of religion that arguably requires protection in the workplace. This requires consideration of the current national and European approaches towards religion, particularly ‘religion–worktime conflicts’ created by employees manifesting religion in the workplace and legal cases involving religious dress.
Chapters 5 and 6 seek to draw together the themes presented earlier in the work and provide insights for the future integration of reasonable accommodation. Chapter 5 addresses, first, exemptions from or changes to job duties, and second, religious discrimination/religious harassment in the workplace. Chapter 6 then goes on to develop the conclusions made in the earlier chapters. For instance, in this chapter Alidadi identifies five commonly heard objections against reasonable accommodation, and runs these objections against the calls made for reasonable accommodation earlier in the text. These criticisms are then individually addressed. By tackling criticism, the arguments made by this work to introduce reasonable accommodation are strengthened.
In thinking about reform, Alidadi poses an important question: can the religious beliefs of a given employee be reasonably accommodated in a way that causes no disproportionate burden for the relevant employer (p 265)? This frames the debate in the later chapters because it draws together employees, employers and the relevant legal protection. The boundaries are drawn so as to prevent the marginalisation of religious minorities in the labour market.
This leads Alidadi to the conclusion that EU-wide protection is ‘essential in moving forward … [in] the fight against intolerance and discrimination’ (p 248). He suggests a compromise here, in that both employees and employers perform their roles in the workplace while admirably attempting to eradicate discrimination. Alidadi puts this well: ‘The idea behind reasonable accommodation is to give employees … opportunities to reconcile their various identities and commitments while pursuing their professional ambitions’ (p 264). Reasonable accommodation is correctly shown to be a conciliatory approach.
The greatest strength in the work is in the comparative approach which provides suggestions for English law. It shows how reasonable accommodation applies to different requests made by employees, and so applies practically to different workplace scenarios. This may prove to be useful for both practitioners and academics as reasonable accommodation continues to develop.
