Balancing safety and belief: VCAT affirms limits of religious accommodation in the workplace

A recent decision by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) offers important insights into how employers can lawfully balance competing legal obligations, particularly when navigating workplace health and safety requirements alongside employee requests based on religious beliefs.

The decision of Cassar v Department of Justice and Community Safety (2025) VCAT 253 emphasises the importance of clear, objective evidence when responding to employee requests for religious accommodations.

Summary of the case and outcome

In this case, Mr Christian Cassar, a senior prison officer at the Melbourne Remand Centre (MRC), requested an exemption from the facility's breathing apparatus policy, which required male officers to be clean-shaven to effectively use safety equipment in the event of a fire. Mr Cassar, identifying as a Roman Catholic, argued that maintaining his beard was an essential aspect of his religious faith and sought an exemption on religious grounds. Mr Cassar's supporting evidence consisted primarily of personal religious beliefs and two conflicting letters from his local parish priest (one stating Mr Cassar's wish to grow facial hair was a personal expression of faith and the other asserting it was a requirement of men of the laity).

His employer denied his request, stating that exemptions were only granted if there was clear, independent verification from central religious authorities confirming that maintaining facial hair was obligatory within that faith. Such exemptions had been granted to 10 to 12 employees of the Muslim and Sikh faiths.

In response to a discrimination claim by Mr Cassar, the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) examined whether the employer's refusal to grant Mr Cassar an exemption from the policy amounted to unlawful discrimination, either direct or indirect, under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) (EO Act).

VCAT found no direct discrimination had occurred because the decision to refuse Mr Cassar's exemption was based on insufficient evidence verifying that beard growth was a general requirement of the Roman Catholic faith, not on his personal religious beliefs.

Indirect discrimination under section 9 of the EO Act occurs if a person imposes, or proposes to impose, a requirement, condition or practice:

• that has, or is likely to have, the effect of disadvantaging persons with an attribute
• that is not reasonable.

The Tribunal concluded that although Mr Cassar was disadvantaged by the policy, the policy was ultimately reasonable. VCAT accepted the employer's argument that exemptions needed strict controls due to significant safety risks in a maximum-security prison environment. Allowing numerous exemptions based on personal religious interpretations would compromise safety standards and operational efficiency, particularly in emergencies involving fires, where wearing breathing apparatus is critical.

VCAT also accepted that it was reasonable for MRC to limit exemptions on the basis of religious belief to circumstances where the obligation can be independently verified by faith leaders.

Relationship with previous decisions

Facial hair has been a consistent source of tension under the EO Act, most notably in the case of Kuyken v Lay [2013] VCAT 1972, and its appeal,* Kuyken v Chief Commissioner of Police * [2015] VSC 204 (see our earlier article here). These cases involved Leading Senior Constable Michael Kuyken, who had worn a neatly trimmed goatee beard since 2004. In December 2011, the Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police announced a new Grooming Standard for police officers prohibiting beards, goatees, or soul patches.

Mr Kuyken applied to VCAT, alleging direct discrimination and victimisation under the EO Act and a contravention of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) (the Charter).

VCAT found that while an email threatening Mr Kuyken with disciplinary action because he had a goatee that did not comply with the new Grooming Standard constituted discrimination, the discrimination was authorised within the scope of the Chief Commissioner's powers under the *Police Regulation Act 1958 *(Vic).

Dissatisfied, Mr Kuyken appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Chief Commissioner's power should be limited to non-discriminatory grooming standards. However, Justice Garde upheld VCAT's decision, affirming the Chief Commissioner's broad authority to set grooming standards as expressly authorised by Parliament, including the removal of facial hair, even if they were discriminatory under the EO Act or infringed upon human rights under the Charter.

Key takeaways for employers

The experiences of both Mr Cassar and Mr Kuyken illustrate that courts often take a holistic approach when determining whether an action constitutes discrimination under the EO Act. Employers should carefully navigate requests for personal accommodations (whether made on the basis of religion, disability or some other protected attribute) while maintaining essential workplace safety requirements. In the defence against discrimination claims, and to avoid unnecessary disputation, there is a need for clear policies, objective reasoning, and proper documentation. Employers should regularly review their policies and procedures to ensure compliance with equal opportunity obligations and health and safety obligations. Specifically, employers should:

• carefully balance competing legal obligations, including their occupational health and safety obligations and their anti-discrimination obligations
• acknowledge the need to make difficult decisions or rigorously test an employee's claims regarding requested accommodations or exemptions, and that this can result in differing outcomes for different employees. This approach is acceptable, provided decisions are made consistently and objectively
• understand that religious discrimination, and discrimination more broadly, is currently a highly topical and evolving area of law and the need to approach conversations with employees in a sensitive - but practical - manner
• where applicable, remain up to date on new methods and techniques to safely allow for facial hair. For example, The Royal Melbourne Hospital recently successfully completed a trial on the Singh Thattha technique, which allows staff members to cover their beard with a plastic band that acts as artificial skin, enabling them to safely wear an N95 mask.

For more information on how the Amendment may impact your organisation, please contact our experienced Workplace Relations & Safety team.