The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has recently confirmed that Ms Azmi had not been discriminated against on grounds of her religion because she had been instructed to remove her veil while teaching children. The EAT said the Employment Tribunal had been correct to conclude last year that this was not a case of direct discrimination. Although there was potentially indirect discrimination involved, it ruled that the school had a defence because in this case the instruction was “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”. Although Ms Azmi’s appeal has been dismissed, this does not mean a green light for employers wishing to impose restrictions on wearing the veil or other religious clothing. It was crucial to the school’s defence that they showed that the ban was not directed at veils per se, but at any form of clothing that obscured the face. They also had to demonstrate that children’s education would be adversely affected if Ms Azmi continued to wear the veil while teaching and that other alternatives that would have accommodated Ms Azmi’s religious beliefs had been explored.