The Court of Justice of the European Union today decided two cases raising the question of whether private employers may prohibit Muslim employees from wearing a headscarf at work. In a case from Belgium,
Achbita v. G4S Secure Solutions NV, (CJEU, March 14, 2017), the Court's Grand Chamber ruled:
Article 2(2)(a) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition on wearing an Islamic headscarf, which arises from an internal rule of a private undertaking prohibiting the visible wearing of any political, philosophical or religious sign in the workplace, does not constitute direct discrimination based on religion or belief within the meaning of that directive.
By contrast, such an internal rule of a private undertaking may constitute indirect discrimination within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78 if it is established that the apparently neutral obligation it imposes results, in fact, in persons adhering to a particular religion or belief being put at a particular disadvantage, unless it is objectively justified by a legitimate aim, such as the pursuit by the employer, in its relations with its customers, of a policy of political, philosophical and religious neutrality, and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.
In a case from France,
Bougnaoui v. Micropole SA, (CJEU, March 14, 2017), however, the Court's Grand Chamber held that where an employer does not have a general rule on dress:
Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that the willingness of an employer to take account of the wishes of a customer no longer to have the services of that employer provided by a worker wearing an Islamic headscarf cannot be considered a genuine and determining occupational requirement within the meaning of that provision.
The Court issued a
press release summarizing the decisions.
The Guardian reports on the decision.
