Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • 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
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • 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
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

FranceEuropeBelgiumCase lawReligious discrimination

Employers can ban Muslim headscarves at work, says EU lawyer

by Stephen Simpson 31 May 2016
by Stephen Simpson 31 May 2016 Stock photo
Stock photo

An employer can prevent a Muslim employee from wearing an Islamic headscarf if the ban is based on a general rule prohibiting political or religious symbols at work, according to a top European lawyer’s opinion.

Religious dress at work

Establish workplace dress code

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

Quick reference: religious clothing at work 

This Belgian case, referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), involves a Muslim receptionist who was permanently contracted out to work for a third party.

She informed her employer that she was going to begin wearing a headscarf in the workplace.

The receptionist’s employer told her that the wearing of any visible religious symbols was contrary to its rules on neutrality, which applied during contact with clients.

The employer subsequently amended its written rules on workplace dress and appearance. It introduced a uniform and banned 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 ultimately resulted in her dismissal.

She brought a domestic discrimination claim and Belgium’s labour appeal court referred her case to the ECJ.

The Belgian court sought guidance from the ECJ on whether or not a rule forbidding all staff from wearing any visible political or religious symbols could lead to direct discrimination against Muslims who wish to wear a headscarf at work.

Advocate general Juliane Kokott, giving her opinion in advance of the full binding ECJ decision in Achbita and another v G4S Secure Solutions NV, suggested that there is no direct religious discrimination in these circumstances.

Muslim headscarves at work: Advocate general’s opinion

“Unlike sex, skin colour, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, age or a person’s disability, the practice of religion is not so much an unalterable fact as an aspect of an individual’s private life, and one, moreover, over which the employees concerned can choose to exert an influence.

“While an employee cannot ‘leave’ his sex, skin colour, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age or disability ‘at the door’ upon entering his employer’s premises, he may be expected to moderate the exercise of his religion in the workplace, be this in relation to religious practices, religiously motivated behaviour or (as in the present case) his clothing.”

Advocate General Kokott did not believe that there could be “less favourable treatment” where a Muslim employee is banned from wearing an Islamic headscarf, provided that that ban is founded on a general company rule of religious and political neutrality.

She pointed out that there was no evidence that the followers of one particular religion or belief were singled out.

The Advocate General gave the examples of a confirmed atheist who expresses through dress and appearance an anti-religious stance, or an employee who wears items that display an allegiance to a political party.

According to the Advocate General, the employer would have applied its neutrality rule to those employees in the same way.

Advocate General Kokott admitted that a ban on Muslim headscarves could constitute indirect religious discrimination.

However, she went on to say that the rule could be justified to enforce an employer’s policy of religious and ideological neutrality, as long as the application of the rule is proportionate.

While stressing that it is for the domestic courts to strike a fair balance between the needs of the employer and the employee’s individual rights, Advocate General Kokott believed that the employer’s stance in this case was justified.

The Advocate General opinion in this case, which is not binding on EU member states, has been given in advance of the full ECJ decision. No date has been set for the publication of the full judgment.

The ECJ has also heard Bougnaoui and another v Micropole Univers, a French case that involved very similar circumstances.

There, a Muslim IT engineer was dismissed after refusing to remove her Muslim headscarf while visiting clients, some of whom had complained.

It is likely that the ECJ judgments in Achbita and Bougnaoui will be published at the same time.

More on the opinion in Achbita and another v G4S Secure Solutions NV, including analysis of its implications for employers, is available on XpertHR.

Avatar
Stephen Simpson

Stephen Simpson is a principal employment law editor at XpertHR. 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 XpertHR in its early days in 2001.

previous post
Redundancy consultation: protective awards for City Link staff
next post
Shared parental leave: enhanced pay is key to take-up

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

You may also like

EU member states to make carer work-life balance...

5 Aug 2022

How to create an inclusive workplace for religion

29 Jul 2022

Unions fear for workers’ rights after Truss pledge

25 Jul 2022

Supreme Court: Holiday pay for part-year staff should...

20 Jul 2022

Netherlands on track to approve working from home...

7 Jul 2022

Supporting Muslims during Eid: Five employer questions

7 Jul 2022

Maya Forstater wins belief discrimination case over gender-critical...

6 Jul 2022

Kristie Higgs succeeds in bid to remove LGBT...

5 Jul 2022

Whistleblowing lawyer awarded £423k by Foreign Office

4 Jul 2022

Christian doctor loses transgender pronoun case, but beliefs...

29 Jun 2022
  • 6 reasons why work-based learning is better than traditional training PROMOTED | A recent Fortune/Deloitte survey found that 71% of CEOs are anticipating that this year’s biggest business disrupter...Read more
  • Strengthening Scotland’s public services through virtual recruiting PROMOTED | This website is Scotland's go-to place for job seekers looking to apply for roles in public services...Read more
  • What’s next for L&D? Enter Alchemist… PROMOTED | It’s time to turn off the tedious and get ready for interactive and immersive learning experiences...Read more
  • Simple mistakes are blighting the onboarding experience PROMOTED | The onboarding of new hires is a company’s best chance...Read more
  • Preventing Burnout: How can HR help key workers get the right help? PROMOTED | Workplace wellbeing may seem a distant memory...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 2022

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2022 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • 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
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+