Woodfi nes Solicitors
Ban on religious
dress upheld in court
A recent ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that an employer can have a neutral dress policy preventing workers from wearing any political, philosophical or religious signs. In Achbita v G4S Secure Solutions, the employer had a neutral
dress policy in place. T is meant that employees were not able to wear anything that had any political, religious or similar signs in any of their customer-facing roles. A Muslim employee working in a client-facing role was warned that she could not wear her headscarf whilst carrying out her role, she continued to do so despite the warnings, as a result the employee was dismissed. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) considered whether the
employer’s neutral dress policy amounted to direct discrimination on the grounds of religion. It was decided that as the policy prohibited all religious signs it did not treat one religion less favourably as against another and so the ECJ said this did not amount to direct discrimination. T e policy did, however, result in a diff erence
in treatment which the ECJ held was indirectly discriminatory based on religion. T is is because Muslims are placed at a particular disadvantage compared to other religions that do not wear religious dress.
A genuine need In the case of IX v WABE, the ECJ ruled that such a ban can only be justifi ed if the employer can provide a genuine need for the policy (a simple desire for neutrality is not suffi cient), in line with the Framework Directive. For example, IX worked with children and their parents in an educational setting, so it is reasonable that parents may wish to have their children supervised by people who don’t openly display an affi liation with any particular religion or belief. A policy like this must also be applied ‘in a general and undiff erentiated way’ to all manifestations of such beliefs, rather than prejudicing a particular group unnecessarily.
ALL THINGS BUSINESS 13
The implications for European and UK employers T e ECJ stated that the ruling allows courts in the EU’s 27 member states ‘a margin of discretion’ to decide whether a ban on religious symbols is justified, based on the laws they have in place to govern such matters. For example, wearing a headscarf was outlawed in French educational settings in 2004, while a ban on full-face coverings outside the home (such as a burqa or niqab) followed in 2011. Due to Brexit, however, the judgment has no binding impact on British courts and tribunals. Even so, under Section 6(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the UK justice system may ‘have regard’ to decisions made by the ECJ ‘so far as it is relevant to any matter before the court or tribunal’.
Savanita Atwal Employment Solicitor Woodfi nes Solicitors
For further information regarding the above, contact a member of the Woodfi nes Employment Team at employmentlaw@woodfi
nes.co.uk or call 0344 967 2505
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
