Rights groups raise concerns after court rules that employers can ban staff from wearing such symbols

Religious organisations and rights groups have expressed concerns about a “disturbing” European Court of Justice ruling on Tuesday that enables European companies to ban employees from wearing visible religious signs. The court ruled that employers were able to ban the wearing of visible political, philosophical or religious signs, so long as it was already included in company laws, and equally applied. While the cases considered by the ECJ involve the headscarf, the ruling will also apply to other religious symbols such as Sikh turbans, Christian crucifixes, or Jewish Kippahs.

The ruling could be used as a “licence to discriminate at the point of hire”, said Mejindarpal Kaur, international legal director of the network, United Sikhs, in an emailed statement. “The ruling is disturbing as it has allowed an employer’s freedom to conduct business to override an employee’s fundamental human right to practice her faith.”

The ruling gave employers the leeway to “discriminate against women — and men — on the grounds of religious belief”, said John Dalhuisen of Amnesty International. “At a time when identity and appearance have become a political battleground, people need more protection against prejudice.”

“We fear that this ruling will serve as a green light to those wishing to normalise discrimination against faith communities,” said a spokesperson for the Muslim Council of Britain. “Many will be worried that this action will prevent Muslim women who chose to wear the scarf from securing jobs.”

Two cases

The Luxembourg-based court’s ruling involves two cases: that of Samira Achbita who was dismissed from her role with Belgian firm G4S Secure Solutions in 2006 after expressing her intent to start wearing a headscarf. The second involved Asma Boughnaoui, who was dismissed by French firm Micropole in 2009, after a client complained about her wearing of the headscarf.

In the case of Ms. Achbita, the court noted that there was an internal G4S rule that employees were prohibited from wearing visible signs of political, philosophical or religious beliefs in the workplace without distinction. Prohibiting wearing a headscarf, under such circumstances where the rule was applied in a “consistent and systematic manner” did not “constitute direct discrimination based on religion or belief,” it concluded.

However, in the case of Ms. Boughanaoui, the court concluded that the ban could not be based on “subjective considerations” such as the employer’s willingness to listen to the customer’s demands. “The ECJ has qualified its ruling by saying that a ban on religious signs by an employer can only be justified if it is based on an internal rule… However, we fear that employers will treat it as a licence to discriminate at the point of hire,” United Sikh’s Ms. Kaur added.

“Instead of seeking to make us all look the same, governments and employers should focus on protecting our fundamental right to freely express our faith,’ said Martha Spurrier, director of U.K. civil liberty and human rights body Liberty.