A report issued by the Commons Women and Equalities Committee has revealed how Muslim women in Britain regularly suffer discrimination in the workplace by seeing their opportunities limited as a result of assumptions being made about their lifestyle and character.

The report records how MPs believe UK employers regard their behaviour as an “acceptable form of discrimination” after such assumptions have gone unchallenged for so long. The report conducted its enquiry with the help of race relation experts and included input by Muslim students in London.

The chair of the Commons Women and Equalities Committee, Maria Miller, states how the findings of the report reflect a larger attitude in which it is “seen as acceptable to discriminate against Muslim women”. She finds this attitude troubling and asserts how “you can’t have some women more equal than others”.

The result of this investigation is expected to begin a more detailed discussion regarding the working experiences of Islamic women. Miller elaborates: “There is a distinct level of institutional racism that is being endured by Muslim women and we must be open about that.”

Another finding of the report is that in order to increase workplace promotion, some women have ceased wearing traditional Islamic dress despite very much wanting to do so. Many women also report that on some occasions they have felt a duty to reveal information about their personal lives, such as whether they are married or have children. The reason behind the need for such information is largely reflected by the stereotype of Muslim women being expected to act subordinately to their husbands and consider the duty of raising children before focusing on their career.

Another discriminatory circumstance found by the report is that employed Muslim women are denied work assignments that require them to travel. Unfair treatment like this is often considered justified by employers because such work involves a degree of independence that Muslim culture is incorrectly seen to not “allow” for women.

Previous attempts to prevent job application discrimination against minorities resulted in the proposal of ‘name blind’ applications in which candidate identity is not revealed. This is done in the hope that the whole process will prevent lifestyle assumptions being made when the name of a candidate is seen.

The report also highlights wider issues of employment affecting the British Muslim community in a more general way, including how Muslim unemployment has reached a level that is more than double the rate of other UK workers. MPs consider these results to be a reflection of a long held societal division between British Muslims and wider society. This is partly due to a fear of Muslim radicalisation in British society, which the report records as having “exacerbated” the inequality experienced, and thus increased tensions.

A recent investigation into the employment criteria of the popular restaurant food delivery service Deliveroo revealed there is a shocking clause in the company’s contracts for self employed workers which prevents them from receiving the same employment rights of other employees.

The Guardian is reporting that the company’s cyclist employees are not legally entitled to bring Deliveroo to employment tribunal unless they they pay for all the expenses the company occurs in the process.

The Deliveroo contract reportedly words this rule as follows: “You further warrant that neither you nor anyone acting on your behalf will present any claim in the employment tribunal or any civil court in which it is contended that you are either an employee or a worker.”

Deliveroo wages are also under the microscope as they are considered barely satisfactory as each employee earns just £7 an hour, with an additional £1 for each delivery they make. This barely reaches minimum wage.

Moreover, it appears there are few other benefits available for self-employed Deliveroo workers who are also expected to pay their own national insurance. The business has been very successful since its founding in 2010 and is estimated to have generated around £158 million in revenue thus far.

The legality of making workers pay for tribunal costs has its roots in 2013 alterations that resulted in employees being held responsible for all costs accrued at tribunal should their claim prove unsuccessful. However, many legal professionals are claiming that Deliveroo’s current position is unlawful and is actually just an effort to to intimidate workers and deter them from legal action.

Deliveroo is already experiencing a backlash for these rules. The company has released the following statement: “We provide a platform for people to work with us on a freelance basis. This allows riders to work flexibly around another commitment, like studying or other work. We’ve worked with legal experts to design our contracts to reflect that and we’re proud to be creating opportunities for over 5,000 riders across the UK.”

Deliveroo is not the only service-based company currently being analysed. There has also been much focus on how drivers of the taxi-hailing mobile app Uber are currently locked in a court case against the company in the hope of adding greater employment rights to their contract, such as a standard living wage, sick payments and a pension scheme.

Delivery firm contracts were scrutinised earlier this year when The Guardian investigated Hermes courier service, which was revealed to be paying many of its workers below national minimum wage despite the company’s claim to the contrary.

The Hermes analysis recently became a political affair after Birkenhead MP Frank Field officially requested for Theresa May to launch a review of existing legislation for self-employment contracts so that British workers easily understand the legality of self employment contracts, thus preventing exploitive conduct occurring.

Whether the situation involving Deliveroo and Uber will turn into a investigation like that of Hermes remains to be seen.

Workplace harassment and gender discrimination most often affects women, but as one recent case involving the Metropolitan police department shows, men are sometimes also on the receiving end of this.

An employment tribunal ruling concluded that Chief Inspector Adrian Denby of Paddington Green Station, London, suffered sex discrimination on five occasions since 2014 at the hands of a female superior officer who was leading a nationwide effort to crack down on masculine behaviour within the force, to thus make the force “more attractive” to female staff. In recent years there have been a number of high profile cases involving alleged patriarchal control within the MET, which has harmed the equality ethos of the force.

Denby was first discriminated against in September 2014 when Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Maxine De Brunner, visited the Territorial Support Group (TSG) that Denby was responsible for managing at Paddington Green station, London. On this occasion De Brunner witnessed a male officer walking from the shower facilities wearing only a towel. Behaviour of this kind has been described as her ‘pet hate’ because it has been proven to of alienated and offended female staff in the past.

Denby faced an internal and criminal investigation over the incident, along with accusations of his improper behaviour regarding a range of other incidents, including unsubstantiated claims of him selling alcohol at the station, allowing staff to openly make homophobic comments, and ‘cheating hours’ by claiming overtime he had not performed. These accusations were made particularly difficult for Denby as his female counterpart at TSG saw no equivalent action get taken against her.

Not only did this treatment result in Denby feeling like a scapegoat for the supposed cultural failings of the TSG, but also caused distress because De Brunner had not considered the numerous improvements that he had personally made to the TSG throughout his employment.

Denby agreed that he should have not allowed male staff to walk semi-naked from the shower, but claims his decision to allow this was due only to the ‘poor design’ of the station’s showers.

Denby’s concerns proved justified, as the tribunal found him to be an “impressive and straightforward witness” who suffered from a clear case of sex discrimination. In contrast, De Brunner’s testimony was considered “not credible”.

The tribunal also took note of Denby’s outstanding past achievements as evidence of his good character, including his being awarded nine commendations, and how he recently travelled to Afghanistan to contribute to the creation of the Afghan police force.

Across the UK, a total of 62 sex discrimination claims have been made by men over the past five years, and this is only the seventh case to have actually won. However, despite Officer Denby’s success, a spokesman for the Met has stated that the police force now intends to fully appeal the tribunal decision: “We have carefully considered the judgement [and] have sought leave to appeal the findings.”

A damages hearing for Officer Denby is currently planned for October.

A controversy in the workplace emerged recently as a London office temp was sent home from work when she refused to wear high heels in an office. Nicola Thorpe, 27, was informed by her bosses at Central London finance business, PwC, that she is expected to wear shoes with a heel measuring 2 to 4 inches. She attended work that day wearing flat shoes and declined to wear heels on grounds that her male colleagues are not expected to do the same.

Ms Thorpe complained that heels would cause her discomfort when working a full day’s shift and asked whether the flat shoes she is accustomed to wearing in UK offices could be an alternative option, but she was sent home without pay and told she would have to come back with high heels before being suitable for work. In an interview with BBC Radio, she explained: ‘if you can give me a reason as to why wearing flats would impair me to do my job today, then fair enough’, but they couldn’t […] I was expected to do a nine-hour shift on my feet escorting clients to meeting rooms. I said ‘I just won’t be able to do that in heels”.

When Ms Thorpe took to Facebook to voice her concern, she quickly discovered that many other women had experienced similar treatment in the workplace; treatment that could be classed as a form of discrimination. Such an occasion often goes unreported as many women are not comfortable voicing their concern to their peers in what is often a male dominated environment and as a result suffer in silence.
Ms Thorpe believes her experience has sexist connotations: “Aside from the debilitating factor, it’s the sexism issue. I think companies shouldn’t be forcing that on their female employees.” This belief is supported by Frances O’Grady, general secretary of the TUC, who says the situation at PwC “reeks of sexism” and said in a statement that “high heels should be a choice, not a requirement”.

Ms Thorpe has created an online petition to abolish the mandatory high heel dress code for women for which she has received upwards of 10,000 signatures thus far. Detailing her experience, she revealed: “I was a bit scared about speaking up about it in case there was a negative backlash, but I realised I needed to put a voice to this as it is a much bigger issue.”

Simon Pratt is the managing director of Portico, the firm that runs PwC. He has provided an explanation for the dress policy in place at PwC, claiming it is standard practice within the service sector to maintain guidelines for employee appearance in order to “positively represent a client’s brand and image”. Mr Pratt also detailed how Ms Thorp had signed the appearance guidelines when she originally began employment with PwC and did not object to the agreed code. Although, it now seems Portico are at least acknowledging that Ms Thorpe has raised some relevant issues as the company is now reconsidering its footwear rules and reviewing existing guidelines.

This situation has provoked much interest in the world of employment law, as it raises questions regarding the legality of whether employees, male or female, should be expected to follow such rigid dress codes at the expense of their personal comfort.

Current UK law allows for employers to dismiss any employee who does not abide by a “reasonable” dress code, on condition that each employee is given a fair amount of time to make arrangements for doing so. Employers also have the legal right to judge what they deem appropriate attire independently of any fixed criteria. Although, UK law states that an “equivalent level of smartness” must be ensured for equality between men and women.

Another important question that Ms Thorpe’s situation has provoked is whether a woman has the right to sue her employer if she feels an employment dress code has discriminated against her. A successful case will be much easier to win if it can be proven that the employer expects women to dress a certain way in a bid to evoke a notion of femininity, rather than creating an intended brand image for the business. Although this too could prove difficult depending on the nature of the business.

It is worth noting though that a legal case against an employer could be possible on health related grounds, as the daily wear of high heels can lead to foot injuries, and the long term affects may result in serious consequences like arthritis and nerve damage.

Emma Supple is a podiatrist at the College of Podiatry, and has been a vocal supporter for abolishing mandatory heels for women in the workplace due to the potential health detriment is causes . In 2009, she voiced her concerns at the House of Commons and noted that her speech “really opened some eyes to the issue”. Her efforts subsequently led to a 2009 TUC motion that women should not be forced to wear heels at work. However, this is yet to prevent businesses from instructing employees to do so if it constitutes supporting a brand image.

The assertion that an employee’s health and comfort takes precedence over expectations of image is certainly reflected by Ms Thorpe’s experience. She feels existing expectations of office dress codes for women need re-evaluating: “I don’t hold anything against the company necessarily because they are acting within their rights as employers to have a formal dress code, [but] women can be smart and formal and wear flat shoes”.