Reply #55: That would be indirect discrimination, according to the law in the UK

[muriel_volestrangler]

since 2003.

"Example: Disliking the baseball caps his delivery drivers like to wear, a Chief Executive applies a ‘no headwear’ policy to all his staff. The policy, although applied to all employees, disadvantages his Sikh staff who wear turbans for religious reasons. This policy is indirect discrimination."
http://www.acas.org.uk/publications/pdf/guide_religionB.pdf

In fact, the original request seems to have been to trim the beard; and then the dispute has been about whether that was good enough. From a slightly more reliable newspaper:

The tribunal was told: "In or around September 2003, David Adams instructed Mr Mohmed to trim his beard.

"Mr Mohmed explained that he had, but Mr Adams did not believe it was short enough." From then on, Mr Adams allegedly regularly harassed Mr Mohmed.

The originating application said: "In early December 2003, David Adams began questioning Mr Mohmed about his beard. He asked Mr Mohmed if he had a choice between keeping his job or shaving his beard off, what would he do? Mr Mohmed explained he had trimmed his beard on a number of occasions to the minimum required by his religion. David Adams stated that he would seek further guidance."

In February this year, Mr Mohmed was summoned to a meeting by Mr Adams and told he was being dismissed for his "lack of enthusiasm".

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/12476232?source=Evening%20Standard
(which also has a phot of Mr. Mohmed, with a not-very trimmed beard. But that was presumably taken after his employment).