1. Introduction
Religious discrimination claims under Section 6(2)(e) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2021 raise issues including dress code requirements, religious holidays, prayer times, dietary requirements, and the interaction between religious belief and other equality grounds.
This article sets out the framework for religion discrimination claims, the interaction with the Section 37 religious ethos exception, the typical fact patterns that arise, and the practical considerations for employers accommodating religious requirements in the workplace.
2. Legislation and Case Law
Section 6(1) of the Employment Equality Act 1998 (as amended) prohibits discrimination on any of the nine protected grounds: gender, civil status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race, and membership of the Traveller community. Section 6(2) of the Act sets out the protected grounds in full. Section 8 of the Act applies the prohibition to all aspects of the employment relationship including access to employment, conditions of employment, training, promotion and dismissal. Section 14A of the Act prohibits harassment and sexual harassment on any protected ground. Section 74 of the Act prohibits victimisation. Section 85A(1) provides that where, in any proceedings, facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary. The leading authority on Section 85A is the Labour Court’s determination in Southern Health Board v Mitchell [2001] ELR 201, in which the Court held that the complainant must, in the first instance, establish a prima facie case of discrimination before the burden shifts to the respondent.
Section 6(2)(e) of the 1998 Acts identifies religious belief as a protected ground. The category includes religious belief, religious background or outlook, and the absence of religious belief.
Section 37 of the 1998 Acts provides a limited exception for religious institutions: a religious, educational or medical institution under the direction or control of a body established for religious purposes may give more favourable treatment, on the religion ground, to an employee or prospective employee where that treatment is to maintain the religious ethos of the institution. The exception has been significantly narrowed since the original enactment.
EU Council Directive 2000/78/EC (the Employment Equality Directive) provides the framework for religious belief protection at EU level. The Court of Justice has, in cases including Achbita (Case C-157/15) and Bougnaoui (Case C-188/15), considered the interaction between employer dress codes and religious manifestation.
Reasonable accommodation of religious belief is not a distinct statutory obligation in the same way that reasonable accommodation of disability is. However, an employer’s failure to accommodate religious requirements may, depending on the circumstances, amount to indirect discrimination under Section 22 of the 1998 Acts.
3. Decision
Religion discrimination cases before the WRC arise in a number of typical fact patterns: dress code disputes (particularly involving religious head coverings); requests for time off for religious observance; dietary requirements in workplace catering; harassment by reference to religious belief; and recruitment-stage discrimination.
The Section 85A burden of proof framework operates in the usual way. The complainant must establish facts from which an inference of discrimination may be drawn. Direct evidence of religion-related comments or refusals during the relevant decision-making process is highly probative.
Indirect discrimination claims under Section 22 require analysis of whether the employer’s policy or practice has a disproportionate adverse impact on a particular religious group, and whether the policy is objectively justified by a legitimate aim with appropriate and necessary means.
Reasonable accommodation issues, while not framed as a distinct statutory obligation, are often the substantive focus of religion discrimination cases. An employer who has failed to engage with a religious accommodation request, or who has refused without specific reasoning, is likely to face a successful complaint.
4. Takeaway
Religion discrimination claims engage both direct and indirect discrimination concepts and require employers to consider religious accommodation requests seriously.
For employers, the practical advice is to maintain neutrality in workplace policies, to consider religious accommodation requests on their specific merits, to document the reasoning for any refusal of accommodation, and to address religion-related harassment promptly.
Employers should be particularly alert to dress code policies. A blanket prohibition on religious head coverings is increasingly difficult to defend; specific operational requirements (such as safety) must be capable of demonstration.
For employees, the practical advice is to advance religious accommodation requests in writing, to explain the religious basis for the request, to engage constructively with any operational concerns raised, and to obtain legal advice if the response is inadequate.
5. Further information
This article was prepared for informational purposes only. For further advice, please email enquiries@crushell.ie or contact the offices of Crushell & Co Solicitors.
6. About Crushell & Co
Crushell & Co is a specialist law firm focused on protecting and advancing the rights of employees in Ireland. We offer a nationwide service, advising individuals on a wide range of legal and regulatory issues arising at work, including employment law, employment immigration and workplace accidents and injuries.
We help employees understand their position and options by translating complex legal issues into clear, practical advice. Our approach is tailored to each client, ensuring that our strategy is aligned with their personal and professional circumstances.
Connect: @CrushellLaw or www.wordpress-576593-6594403.cloudwaysapps.com
