Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

EuropeCase lawBelgiumFranceReligious discrimination

Employers cannot ban Muslim headscarves, says Advocate General

by Stephen Simpson 13 Jul 2016
by Stephen Simpson 13 Jul 2016 WestEnd61/REX/Shutterstock.
WestEnd61/REX/Shutterstock.

An employer cannot have a blanket ban on religious dress that prevents a Muslim woman from wearing an Islamic headscarf when in contact with clients, an Advocate General for the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has recommended.

Discrimination laws in France and Belgium

France: Equal opportunities

Belgium: Equal opportunities

In French case Bougnaoui and another v Micropole Univers, a Muslim IT engineer who wore an Islamic headscarf was told by her employer to remove it while visiting clients, after a client’s staff complained about her appearance.

The Muslim employee was dismissed after she refused to comply with this request from her employer, which has strict rules about staff expressing or displaying personal beliefs when with clients.

The employee brought a claim in the French domestic court, which referred the issue to the ECJ.

The French court asked the ECJ whether or not the wish of this customer that a visiting IT engineer not wear an Islamic headscarf could be a “genuine and determining occupational requirement” of the job.

Advocate General Eleanor Sharpston, giving her opinion in advance of the full ECJ decision, suggested that employers are committing direct religious discrimination if a Muslim employee is banned from wearing an Islamic headscarf while at work.

The Advocate General acknowledged that there are limited circumstances in which a requirement of the job allows an employer to ban an employee from wearing religious apparel.

Muslim headscarves at work: Advocate General’s opinion

“In the vast majority of cases it will be possible, on the basis of a sensible discussion between the employer and the employee, to reach an accommodation that reconciles adequately the competing rights of the employee to manifest his or her religion and the employer to conduct his business.”

“Occasionally, however, that may not be possible. In the last resort, the business interest in generating maximum profit should…give way to the right of the individual employee to manifest his or her religious convictions.”

“Here, I draw attention to the insidiousness of the argument, ‘but we need to do X because otherwise our customers won’t like it’. Where the customer’s attitude may itself be indicative of prejudice…it seems to me particularly dangerous to excuse the employer from compliance with an equal treatment requirement to pander to that prejudice.”

However, she went on to say that these exceptions are rare, and can apply only where a ban on religious dress is “absolutely necessary to undertake the professional activity in question”.

Advocate General Sharpston said that the obvious exception would be in relation to health and safety at work. She gave the example of preventing a male Sikh employee who wears a turban from working in a post that requires the wearing of protective headgear.

Similarly, a female Muslim employee working on dangerous factory machinery could be prevented from wearing religious attire that could give rise to a serious safety risk.

However, the Advocate General could see nothing to suggest that Ms Bougnaoui could not perform her duties as an IT engineer. Indeed, her dismissal letter referred to her professional competence.

The Advocate General also considered that a company policy that imposes an entirely neutral dress code is likely to result in indirect discrimination. However, the policy could be justified if it pursues a legitimate aim and is proportionate.

For example, a neutral dress-code policy might be in the interests of the employer’s business and therefore constitute a legitimate aim.

However, Advocate General Sharpston failed to see how such a policy could be justified in Ms Bougnaoui’s circumstances.

The opinion follows hot on the heels of the contradictory opinion of Advocate General Kokott in the similar Belgian case Achbita and another v G4S Secure Solutions NV (delivered on 31 May).

In Achbita, a Muslim receptionist in Belgium working on a third party’s premise was told that the wearing of any visible religious symbols was contrary to its rules on neutrality.

Religious dress at work

Establish a workplace dress code

Should a female Muslim employee be allowed to wear a veil or headscarf?

Quick reference: religious clothing at work 

Her employer introduced a policy banning workers from wearing any visible symbols expressing their political, philosophical or religious beliefs.

The Muslim receptionist’s refusal to go to work without a headscarf resulted in her dismissal.

The opinion of Advocate General Juliane Kokott in Achbita was that there is no direct religious discrimination in these circumstances, and that indirect religious discrimination could be justified.

The Advocate General opinions in Achbita and Bougnaoui have been given in advance of the full ECJ decisions. No date has been set for the publication of the full judgments.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

It is likely that the ECJ judgments in both cases will be published at the same time.

More on the opinion in Bougnaoui and another v Micropole Univers, including analysis of its implications for employers, is available on XpertHR.

Stephen Simpson

Stephen Simpson is Principal HR Strategy and Practice Editor at Brightmine. His areas of responsibility include the policies and documents and law reports. After obtaining a law degree and training to be a solicitor, he moved into publishing, initially with Butterworths. He joined Brightmine in its early days in 2001.

previous post
Leadsom and “CV-gate”: how can HR always be sure of accuracy?
next post
Brexit secretary vows no change to employment law

You may also like

Consultation launched after Supreme Court ‘sex’ ruling

20 May 2025

UK and EU agree to collaborate on ‘youth...

19 May 2025

EHRC bows to pressure and extends gender consultation

15 May 2025

‘Unacceptable to question integrity’ of Supreme Court judgment

2 May 2025

Trans ex-judge to appeal Supreme Court biological sex...

29 Apr 2025

EHRC: Interim update on single-sex spaces draws criticism

28 Apr 2025

Labour MPs urge more flexibility with EU over...

24 Apr 2025

UK employees worried by potential rise of US...

24 Apr 2025

Opposition to Supreme Court sex ruling is ‘wishful...

22 Apr 2025

Supreme Court transgender ruling: ‘common sense’ or ‘incredibly...

17 Apr 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+