This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/england/bradford/6430349.stm

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Tribunal hears appeal in veil row Tribunal hears appeal in veil row
(about 4 hours later)
A Muslim classroom assistant sacked for refusing to remove her veil in lessons has launched an appeal against a ruling that she was not discriminated against.A Muslim classroom assistant sacked for refusing to remove her veil in lessons has launched an appeal against a ruling that she was not discriminated against.
Aishah Azmi, 24, was asked to take off the veil after Headfield Church of England school in Dewsbury, W Yorks, said pupils could not understand her.Aishah Azmi, 24, was asked to take off the veil after Headfield Church of England school in Dewsbury, W Yorks, said pupils could not understand her.
Mrs Azmi refused and was sacked after an employment tribunal ruled that she was not the victim of discrimination.Mrs Azmi refused and was sacked after an employment tribunal ruled that she was not the victim of discrimination.
She does not contest the sacking, but claims religious discrimination.She does not contest the sacking, but claims religious discrimination.
Her case against Kirklees Council is being considered by the Employment Appeals Tribunal in London.Her case against Kirklees Council is being considered by the Employment Appeals Tribunal in London.
'Religious belief' 'Unworkable test'
Her counsel, Declan O'Dempsey, said comparing her at the previous tribunal with someone who wore a balaclava or facial bandages after an accident was "not appropriate". Her counsel, Declan O'Dempsey, said he had new evidence that had not been before the earlier trial, a report from a council officer who observed Mrs Azmi teaching on two occasions.
He said: "The tribunal chose a person who decided for some reason to wear a balaclava to teach the students. She was observed wearing the veil when she was with a male teacher and another time when she did not wear the veil with a female teacher.
"With respect to the tribunal, it's not a comparator which was a reasonable one to choose." The report found "a difference between Mrs Azmi's effectiveness" but said this could have been because of other factors and it was suggested that she be observed over a long period of time."
Mr Dempsey said that other staff at the school wore the hijab, which covers the head, but there are "different strands of belief in Islam about the requirements for wearing the hijab or niqab (full veil)". Mr O'Dempsey said his client had not been given that opportunity.
He said religious belief can be expressed verbally and also symbolically. Peter Oldham, representing the council, said Mr O'Dempsey's argument set up a "very uncertain and unworkable test".
Damages awarded The panel reserved their judgement to a later date.
Mr Justice Wilkie, who is hearing the appeal on a panel with two lay members, said: "You are saying that the characteristic of wearing the veil is a religious belief in its own right and it is not simply a manifestation of being a Muslim." In October, an employment tribunal dismissed Mrs Azmi's three claims for discrimination and harassment, although it did agree she had been victimised by Kirklees Council, the local education authority.
Mrs Azmi's lawyer Nick Whittingham, of the Kirklees Law Centre, said a result was not expected on Thursday as the tribunal was expected to reserve its decision.
In October, an employment tribunal dismissed her three claims for discrimination and harassment, although it did agree she had been victimised by Kirklees Council, the local education authority.
She was awarded £1,100 in damages.She was awarded £1,100 in damages.
Mrs Azmi had said she was willing to remove her veil in front of children, but not if male colleagues were present.Mrs Azmi had said she was willing to remove her veil in front of children, but not if male colleagues were present.
The school and authority argued that pupils needed to see her face to understand what she was saying in lessons.The school and authority argued that pupils needed to see her face to understand what she was saying in lessons.