Headscarf ban in the workplace does not constitute direct discrimination ruled the ECJ in Achbita v G4S Secure Solutions

  • April 07, 2017
  • By Hunters Law

In 2003 Ms Achbita started working at G4S as a receptionist. The Company had an unwritten rule, prohibiting workers from wearing visible signs of their political, philosophical or religious beliefs in the workplace.

Three years later, Ms Achbita informed her managers that she intended, in the future, to wear an Islamic headscarf during working hours. Shortly after, G4S changed its workplace regulations to provide that ‘employees are prohibited, in the workplace, from wearing any visible signs of their political, philosophical or religious beliefs and/or from engaging in any observance of such beliefs’. Two weeks later, Ms Achbita was dismissed because of her continuing insistence that she wished, as a Muslim, to wear the Islamic headscarf at work.

Ms Achbita brought an action against her dismissal in the Belgian courts, which ruled that the dismissal was justified and that there had been no direct or indirect discrimination. The case went all the way to the Belgian Supreme Court, which referred the question to the ECJ whether the prohibition on wearing, as a female Muslim, a headscarf at work constitutes direct discrimination if the employer has introduced a workplace rule prohibiting all employees from wearing outward signs of political, philosophical and religious beliefs at work.

The ECJ ruled that the prohibition was legitimate and that the headscarf ban did not constitute direct discrimination as there was no evidence that that Ms Achbita was treated differently as compared to any other workers.

By contrast, the ECJ considered that this type of ban may constitute indirect discrimination if “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”.  This would be a question for the referring court to ascertain.

The position is different if an employer has not introduced an express workplace rule on displays of religious adherence.  In the case of Bougnaoui and another v Micropole SA which the ECJ decided on the same day, the court held that a French employee who had been dismissed for refusing to remove her headscarf at the request of a client had been directly discriminated against because the employer had not introduced a workplace rule which applied to all employees.  The test of justification was therefore more onerous and the employer would have to show that the prohibition was based on a genuine and determining occupational requirement, which cannot include an instruction from a client requiring an employee to remove her headscarf.

For queries in relation to employment matters, please contact Stephen Morrall or your usual contact at Hunters.


Related News

Jul 22, 2021
Gregor Kleinknecht and Constance Tait examine the impact on trademark litigation and provide 10 tips on navigating the post-Brexit era in Managing IP
Jul 16, 2021
Gregor Kleinknecht and Anastassia Dimmek examine the growing threat of zombie firms in Lawyer Monthly
Jul 07, 2021
Richard Baxter and Constance Tait examine a report suggesting that firms with targeted support for ethnic minority workers see benefits
Jun 28, 2021
Richard Baxter discusses UK-EU Data Protection and how adequacy decisions avoid imminent disruption to data flows
Jun 23, 2021
Richard Baxter and Constance Tait examine the recent Burnell v Trans-Tag Ltd case in the High Court
Jun 22, 2021
Anastassia Dimmek discussed the key challenges of protecting clients’ healthy businesses from zombie firms in a webinar hosted by Advoselect
Jun 18, 2021
Richard Baxter and Constance Tait discuss the looming annual returns deadline for employee share schemes
May 18, 2021
Hunters hosted the Withdrawal and The Trade Marks Act 1994 webinar
Mar 17, 2021
Stephen Morrall comments on Uber drivers entitled to minimum wage, holiday pay and pension following the Supreme Court decision in The Sunday Times Driving, The Times and the Daily Mail
Feb 19, 2021
Stephen Morrall comments on Uber losing a landmark Supreme Court battle in the Evening Standard and the Financial Times

© Hunters Law LLP 2021 | Privacy NoticeLegal & Regulatory | Cookies Policy | Complaints Procedure.

Hunters Law LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (number 657218)