A Muslim chef employed by the Metropolitan Police is suing them for religious discrimination, it has been reported.
Hasanali Khoja, 60, has accused the UK’s largest police force of religious discrimination because he was expected to cook bacon and pork sausages – and was allegedly refused permission not to.
He said: "I had a letter from the human resources department saying that I would not be required to cook any pork. But this was not exactly what I wanted as a guarantee. The Met has shown no sensitivity towards my religion."
Mr Khoja added that their response was "ill-thought and discriminatory".
In February, the Chartered Management Institute (CMI) published a new guide to help employers avoid religious discrimination cases.
There were 600 instances of such discrimination handled by the courts in the year to April 2008, according to the CMI.
This is a world gone mad. Why the hell did he apply for a chef’s position in a mixed religous role if he is expecting not to prepare certain foods. Anyone would think he was being asked to eat it. He’s probably got a beard so is he wearing a beard net during food preparation?
This is a disgrace.
The Met Police, a symbol of justice and equality for all the population makes a mockery of this country and highlights it’s attitudes!
probably has a beard?
You addumptive, prejudiced retard.
Do you have dirty ginger curtained hair like Kevin from Kevin and perry just because that is your name?
An outraged civil servant.
This is the biggest load of rubbish I have heard.Why be a chef when you cannot cook certain foods and why was he even given the job in the first place. If anything comes from this then the world has gone mad or is this what he is after, money, money, money.
This country has gone crazy with their human rights. People are just taking the biscuit & the courts & our laws let them take us for a ride. For God’s sake why give him a job in the first place. It is all a farce anyway…half of them drink & eat whatever but when at work they claim to go all religious. No wonder the BNP is getting stronger!!
Kevin – are you for real, as a scrounging civil servant shouln’t you be doing some actual work for a change instead of trawling websites. As my tax money supports you and your lazy public sector colleagues could you at least make an effort to look as if you’re providing me with value for money.
Is there an issue that is more effective in polarises opinions?
We must be able to challenge any types of belief and individuals must carry some responsibility for their choice of work and workplace.
Is it realistic to be a chef cooking the “Full English” not to cook bacon or sausages? Then again, my guess is that not everyone in the kitchen would be a Muslim and you have to wonder how this has been handled for it to get to this stage. Equally, you have to wonder whether previous cases make the Met Police an easy target for claims of this nature.
I am appaled that an ‘outraged civil servant’ would call someone a retard – also a discriminatory comment, so you are as bad as the other respondents. By the way – what is ‘addumptive’?
Surely the point is that he was assured that he would not be required to cook pork; so do they now insist that he cooks bacon and pork sausage.Have they only got one chef?
Let’s respect each other’s differences….
I cannot believe that you are all on an HR website and have the above attitudes and disrespect for each other!
Nevermind the various slurs: lazy public sector colleagues; retard; etc… Why on earth didn’t they just use Halal saugages? That way everyone’s a winner. My guess is that the chap suing was a bit of a pain anyway so they couldn’t be bothered to make adjustments for him to stay. Good luck to him and good luck to the met police (both deserving of eacthother no doubt).
These are the laws of this country. Why should they not be taken advantage of? Is it not insulting to ask Mr Khoja to cook pork? This country has welcomed Muslims into society and so surely it must provide for Muslim religous beliefs and enforce others to respect them?
Everyone,lets take a breath here. This subject is an emotive one obviously but name verbal abuse of each other is not the answer. The individual feels he requires some justice, let’s allow the process to happen and see where it goes. My personal view is that some consideration should have been taken at the employment stage, it does seem a bit extreme to suggest discrimination though!
Jack, we are not all wishy washy whining hr practitioners like you, these people are t***s and deserve to be called as such.
*hrreview webmaster edit… please refrain from too many swear words.. thank you**
i think we are all rather missing the point.
this gentleman received a letter from HR services confirming he would not be required to cook pork. he comments ‘that was not exactly what i wanted as a guarantee’. Has anyone asked what form of guarantee he required?
Kath-Halal Pork????. Get real.
Amnyway many people object to eating Halal meat on cruelty grounds.
If a vegetarian refused to cook meat they would be shown the door.
I am struggling to get my head round this – perhaps it is just a lack of knowledge on my part, but I was under the impression the Muslim religion prohibited the CONSUMPTION
Rich, I never said I worked in HR. However, I am appalled at the lack of respect that is being displayed on this website. It is for real academic views, and not a forum for abuse.
I am with Jack, on these types of forums we need to remain professional, and there are ways to put views across without offending or alienating colleagues. How can we champion Equal Opportunities if we challenge each others views in such a rude and obstructive manner.
precisely my point Jackyboy, you are giving “academic” views whereas I’m concerned with “reality”. Are you a lecturer?
I am struggling to get my head round this – perhaps it is just a lack of knowledge on my part, but I was under the impression the Muslim religion prohibited the CONSUMPTION of Pork products (except in certain circumstances)i.e.
“He hath only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of Allah. But if one is forced by necessity, without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then is he guiltless (if s/he consumes any of the above type). For Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful”
So what is the issue here – could we please have some clarification from someone with an appropriate level of expertise and understanding, rather than those just wanting to vent their spleen (or vegetarian, organic, free-range equivalent)
Finished it this time without hitting the submit button too early!!!
No and my profession does not come into this. I will leave you all to your jibes now and try to find a site with constructive viewpoints.
Jack i think you should consider your profession when you are on an HR Forum and using the level of profanities you have. You are very unprofessional and good luck in your search for a site with no morals and fibre.
Article, as such, provide a limited amount of information which are normally designed to provoke a reaction as evidenced in some of the above which in my view are a little unprofessional. As rightly commented the process has to run it’s course and the outcome will be very interesting. How was this actually handled at the job design, interview and appointment stages and, how the guarantee given (whether considered necessary or not) would be applied to the working arrangements and was it? Whatever your opinion is, this gentleman was appointed and given a written guarantee and obviously feels that this was not honoured by his employer! This now lies with the lawyers and tribunal to decide.
I apologise Jack i have put in the wrong name here. Please accept my apology.
there seems to a point over looked on both sides.
The could have asked the chef if he had a problem with cooking pork.
If the chef was as devoted to his religion as he makes out he should have made it clear before he accepted the job.
The gentleman in question has a point which requires further review, i.e., whether he has a “guarantee”. If the latter is proved to be true then the employer is at fault.
The knee-jerk reaction to this article from our colleagues is unwarranted and puerile. Would there be a similiar reaction if the gentleman was a vegetarian not prepared to cook any type of meat?
Incidently, all followers of the old testament (Jews, Christians and Jews) are prohibited from eating of pork. Of course, Christians have chosen to move away from this position.
This is quite remarkable and will sadly lead to worse victimisation of minorities because majorities will not view discrimination complaints seriously.
The law has already considered this in a case involving a christian registrar who refused to carry out civil partnership ceremonies as it was in conflict with her beliefs. The court ruled that her subsequent dismissal was not discriminatory. If we as a society are to respect each other, it must also be reflected in the behaviour of the minorities as well as the majorities. If minorities have the right to differ, so do majorities. If my understanding of the law is correct, it doesnot give rise to a legal claim.
I think in this situation the Met is on a loser, if they failed to employ him because of his religious rights they would be taken to court. Now they have taken him on they are being taken to court for (presumably) the same reason they would have refused to employ him.
I have no problem with people who come to Gods Fair Country to live and work. But please do not exploit our openness and fairness to all when looking for that work.
Although off topic, it was announced honours and medals awarded by the queen were to be “altered” as they were too openly Christian and could offend those of other faiths. That is totally unacceptable as I have lived in countries in the Far East where they would never think of altering their way of life, clothing, medals etc just because of my beliefs.
Perhaps there is much much more to this story than we know of at present.
A missing detail makes a big difference.
What is missing from the report is that the person in question has been transfered (at his request) by HR to a different role; yet he still feels the need to sue for racial discrimination.
Many meetings were held to assist in finding avenues for solving the problem.
I was told the other week that I could no longer legally ask an applicant for a delivery drivers job whether they had a driving licence as they could be able to make alternative arrangements.
Taxi’s maybe? your guess is as good as mine.
An interesting and emotional exchange of views. Incidentally Halal sausages do exist and are widely available to caterers and the public. Having worked in HR for many years and recruited in areas where applicants may have religious reasons for objecting to certain aspects of jobs eg selling alcohol and pork products I have become aware of the need to make the job requirements clear from the outset and to make adjustments where possible in order to avoid this sort of situation. How many people organise training sessions across Friday prayer time (Islam) and into commencement of the Sabbath (Judaism) but would not think of having a training session on Good Friday (Christianity) to give just a few examples?
There is no excuse for ignorance of each others needs and beliefs in this day and age. We should be positively welcoming the benefits diversity brings and not focusing on difference and intolerance.
Good Friday is a bank holiday– once a year–BIG DIFFERENCE.
Not sure what Pet’s point is…..
Sorry Pet I should have also said that whoever advised you that you cannot require an applicant for a driving job to hold a full driving license is incorrect. It is a legal requirement in this country that anyone driving a vehicle whether for work or otherwise holds a current valid driving license an you are therefore perfectly entitled to require evidence as part of your recruitment process. If you have a disabled applicant who holds a valid license but can only drive an adapted vehicle it would be for a tribunal to decide whether it is reasonable to expect your organisation to adapt or otain an adapted vehicle for that employee.
Simple… A load of time and space taken up with what REALLY is a matter of £££ In my humble opinion this muslim chappie is out for all he can get. I do notice that there has been no mention of how long he worked there before it dawned on him he had to cook bits of pig, maybe just long enough to entitle him to register a claim. Final point… ALL interviews end with the sentence… “Have you any questions” mmmmmm I should have thought such a ‘devoted’ muslim would have asked that one, unless of course he was pre-occupied with pound note signs.
I do believe that anyone taking a job as chef in our fair country should be expected to provide all varieties of food enjoyed by the great unwashed. However, if the Met have issued a contract varying such reasonable requirements so be it. The issue is nothing to do with religion it is a matter of contract.
A landslide victory for common sense.. well done all you voters.
A Police canteen without sausage and bacon?
I cannot see what’s the problem, his religion only states that they should not eat pork, there is nothing to say they can not cook it.
To the person who suggested that using Halal meat makes everyone a winner – I think the animals left with dislocated legs, conscious, bleeding slowly to death from a stab wound in their necks would disagree… mind you, done properly it’s a kinder method than the standard Westerm technique.
I find people can get a little obsessed with small ‘people issues’ sometimes and miss very large injustices in the process.