The All Party Parliamentary Group on Race and Community has expressed concern regarding high levels of Black, Pakistani and Bangladeshi female unemployment in its new report on the issue. The report follows a five month inquiry.

The report and inquiry was written and undertaken in partnership with the Runnymede Trust, which acts a secretariat for the group.

It argues that discrimination is present at every level of the recruitment process, and cites examples of women changing their names or removing religious dress, such as the hijab, for job interviews.

The report, accompanying short film and evidence submitted is available here.

The press release is available here.

For more information contact Vicki Butler, who wrote the report on behalf of the APPG: vicki@runnymedetrust.org / 020 7377 9222

Runnymede Trust news report, 7 December 2012

See also "Ethnic minority women face jobs crisis", Guardian, 7 December 2012

And "Women 'remove hijabs to get work' as ethnic minorities face more discrimination", Daily Telegraph, 7 December 2012.

The APPG report states: "Muslim women who wear the hijab reported discrimination and women of all three ethnic groups reported questions asked about intentions regarding marriage and children. This was often tied to assumptions based on ethnicity – for example it was assumed that Muslim women would want to stop work after having children."

The report says that Zamila Bunglawala, author of Valuing Family, Valuing Work: British Muslim Women and the Labour Market, highlighted some of her own research during the inquiry, which found that some Muslim women who removed their hijab for interviews were successful in getting a job, having worn their hijab to previous interviews and being unsuccessful.

The London Borough of Tower Hamlets also cited evidence from the Equality and Human Rights Commission which found that 1 in 5 Bangladeshi women under 35 experienced negative comments about wearing religious dress.

The report backs this up with oral evidence: "A group of Pakistani and Bangladeshi women in Oldham mentioned a number of friends and relatives who wear hijab who have found it particularly difficult to find jobs. For some of the older women, discrimination towards hijab wearers was met with a grudging acceptance, with one woman stating that she decided to stop wearing the hijab many years ago in order to help her get a job."

One of the women interviewed spoke about how a friend who is a recent first class graduate from a Russell Group university has struggled to find work and believes that her "decision to wear the hijab is restricting her from getting a job". She added that because her friend experiences a bad reception at interviews she has even considered "taking the hijab off" while looking for a job and then "putting it back on once she has found employment". The same young woman has been successful obtaining work where she has not required a face-to-face interview, such as marking exam papers.

A Pakistani woman in Oldham is quoted as saying about a friend: "From her appearance you can not tell she is a Muslim, but she has a Muslim name and when she mentions her name [to employers] that's it – they back off."

For Muslim women, convincing employers to allow time in the day for Muslim prayer was cited as a difficulty and lack of attendance at work social occasions in pubs was argued by some witnesses as being a disadvantage for future job prospects within an organisation.

The report states: "Yvonne Coghill from the NHS highlighted how not drinking alcohol and not entering pubs can limit opportunities for Muslim women, as it means they are not 'part of the mix' at work network events. This could make them be seen as outsiders and thus more vulnerable to redundancy. Whilst Coghill suggested Muslim women should consider going along to these events even if they do not drink at them, Noor Ali from Morrisons argued that Muslims should not feel as if they should enter pubs to further their career as this is not allowed under their religion. She added that it is more important to change other people's views of Muslim culture, which has been her approach."

View the Original article

A Muslim airline pilot sacked after he was linked to two suspected terrorists has lost his case against British Airways.

Samir Jamaluddin, a senior first officer who flew Boeing 747 jets, was arrested by counter terror police in 2007 before he was dropped by the airline three years later. He launched a claim for racial discrimination and unfair dismissal but this was rejected by an employment tribunal which found in favour of BA.

Mr Jamaluddin, who piloted long-haul flights from Heathrow airport, claimed an "air of suspicion" was created around him after he was held on allegations of money laundering, in connection with the Metropolitan Police terror investigation. Officers dropped the case against him in February 2008 owing to insufficient evidence.

Mr Jamaluddin initially remained with BA but the airline suspended his flight crew pass and he was sacked in October 2010, following a security review of his position. The British pilot, born to Indian parents, told a hearing in Havant, Hampshire, that he believed he was targeted because he was Asian and a Muslim.

It was agreed Mr Jamaluddin, who had been an award winning cadet, had an excellent flying record, an unblemished reputation and hoped to be promoted to captain by next year.

While police did not pursue the criminal case against him, BA conducted its own internal investigation, concluding there was a significant security risk if Mr Jamaluddin continued in his role. He was offered the opportunity to find a new position within the company which did not require him to have an airside pass. This proved unsuccessful and his employment was terminated.

The tribunal accepted BA's decision but expressed sympathy for the pilot's "plight". It said:

"The Tribunal had no doubt that for whatever reason, the claimant found himself in an invidious position; as did the respondents. There was no evidence of wrongdoing or misconduct by the claimant, however, his employer had a very proper duty to pursue the matters which ultimately led to his dismissal.

"The withdrawal of the pass and his subsequent dismissal has had a catastrophic effect on the claimant's flying career, certainly within the UK.

"The tribunal after consideration of all of the facts, whilst being sympathetic to the claimant's plight, are satisfied that the respondents did not discriminate or act unlawfully."

Independent, 4 July 2012

View the Original article