This year saw the issue of religious dress at work thrust unceremoniously into the limelight for all to discuss.
The subject constitutes a potato of truly thermonuclear proportions, with the easily offended seemingly poised on all sides, their outrage cannons carefully loaded.
With only a few souls brave enough to venture into the fray, some have suggested, not unreasonably, that the media played a key role in heating the debate to the temperatures it reached several weeks ago.
Fortunately, the furore seems to have abated, allowing us respite to examine what actually happened, and what it means.
Ignition
Two high profile cases seemed to illustrate the issue quite nicely.
Muslim teaching assistant Aishah Azmi worked part time as a bilingual support worker in a school controlled by Kirklees Council.
Her request to wear a hijab veil in the presence of male teachers was initially granted, and as many of the staff at the school were men, she wore it most of the time.
However, after observing 23 year old Azmi's teaching, the school decided that her performance was much improved when she was non-veiled.
The local authority education service's inspired advice to head-teachers on being veiled in school said: "Obscuring the face and mouth reduces non-verbal signals – a pupil needs to see the adult's full face in order to receive optimum communication."
One can scarcely imagine the mental powers required to work that one out. But Azmi refused to remove the veil, and was suspended shortly after.
However, she claimed, as was her right, that her suspension constituted both direct and indirect religious discrimination.
Cue the outrage
With the already precarious nature of any issue concerning the Muslim community, the debate kicked off in earnest.
"By allowing a woman to wear a veil, who knows if she is a terrorist? Veils should be allowed to be worn at home not in the workplace," said one respondent to the BBC's unfailingly entertaining 'Have Your Say'.
However, the debate was not limited to Islamic dress. British Airways (BA) also found itself embroiled in a similarly tricky case when Nadia Eweida claimed she had been "forced" to take unpaid leave after refusing to conceal or remove the cross she wore.
BA denied that it had banned the wearing of crosses, but said that its uniform policy clearly stated that such items should be concealed beneath the uniform.
She was offered a non-uniformed post were she would be able to openly wear her cross, but turned the offer down and refused to return to work.
In November both cases concluded with unfavourable results for the claimants in what some called a victory for common sense.
Caroline Slocock, chief executive of the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), acknowledges the ferocity of the discussion surrounding veils, but believes that there is a wider debate on which we should be focusing.
"We know from our interim report that Muslim women face a number of barriers in terms of access to work, some of which relate to perceptions from work colleagues about their clothing," she says. "They face racism, sexism and sometimes discrimination against their dress. That is what needs to be addressed, and that is where we should be putting our efforts."
In the eyes of the law
Much intelligent, and probably more completely stupid, debate has been cast into the moral quagmire of who is right and wrong; though that is not an issue we shall attempt to negotiate here.
However, the mountains of unwanted media attention heaped on both the organisations involved will no-doubt have motivated many employers to consider how they can avoid a similar mess.
Religious discrimination regulations came into force on 2 December 2003.
The regulations rightly prevent employers from directly or indirectly discriminating, harassing or victimising any employee because of their religion or any religion they are associated with.
Direct discrimination is defined by ACAS as: "to treat [a person] less favourably than others because of their religion or belief.”
Whereas indirect discrimination is defined as: "to apply a criterion, provision or practice which disadvantages people of a particular religion or belief."
However, the rules are not black and white, for instance if an employer feels he or she can justify the selection or promotion of someone of a particular religious flavour, then it is for an Employment Tribunal or other Court to decide whether the regulations have been broken.
"When deciding if this applies, it is necessary to consider the nature of the work and the context in which it is carried out," says ACAS. "Jobs may change over time and organisations should periodically consider whether the requirement continues to apply."
Avoid stickiness with clarity
In the case of Azmi, the tribunal decided that while the teacher being asked to remove her hijab could be considered under indirect discrimination rules, the aims of the school had been legitimate.
The instruction not to wear the veil was confined to class time, meetings had been arranged to discuss the issue, she was given time to reconsider her decision and alternative proposals offered.
It also emerged that the lady had not worn a veil at her interview, despite the presence of a male interviewer.
"The way forward for companies is to be very clear about their policies from the outset," says Dianah Worman, CIPD advisor on diversity. "These policies have to be related to job requirements and communicated effectively. If someone is in a job which requires a lot of face-to-face conversation, then the clarity of the policy needs to be directly related to the job requirement."
However, she cautions that this is not a cut and dry process. Companies need to do their research when implementing these policies and not be afraid of changing them in the event that they don’t work.
"Often people will look for tick-box responses when doing this, but that's not the way it works,” she says. "It's important to involve your employees in the dialogue. That way they're much more likely to buy in as they will feel like they've been made a part of the decision making process."
"And if you're going to ban some item of religious clothing or jewellery," she adds, "you'd better make sure you have a jolly good reason!"
