2016/53 Landmark decision by Austrian Supreme Court: Face veil ban for employees is lawful (AT)

The Austrian Supreme Court has ruled that the general prohibition of Muslim face veils by an employer does not constitute unlawful discrimination. In this landmark decision, Austria’s Supreme Court expresses the view that an uncovered face is a prerequisite to proper communication. Thus, termination of employment by reason of an employee’s refusal to come to work unless she can wear a face veil is not unlawful under the Austrian Equal Treatment Act. Whether this rule also applies to other religious clothing such as headscarves remains to be seen.

2016/53 Landmark decision by Austrian Supreme Court: Face veil ban for employees is lawful (AT)

The Austrian Supreme Court has ruled that the general prohibition of Muslim face veils by an employer does not constitute unlawful discrimination. In this landmark decision, Austria’s Supreme Court expresses the view that an uncovered face is a prerequisite to proper communication. Thus, termination of employment by reason of an employee’s refusal to come to work unless she can wear a face veil is not unlawful under the Austrian Equal Treatment Act. Whether this rule also applies to other religious clothing such as headscarves remains to be seen.

2016/54 Dismissing a Christian teacher for refusing to separate from her husband following conviction for sex offences was indirect religious discrimination (UK)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has upheld an appeal against the finding that a committed Christian teacher who refused to separate from her husband following his conviction for sexual offences would have been dismissed regardless of her faith and therefore such a dismissal was not indirectly discriminatory. The EAT found instead that the Claimant was presented with the choice of having to separate from her husband or be dismissed which subjected people who have a faith-based commitment to marriage to a particular disadvantage.

Case C-414/16. Religious discrimination

Is Article 4(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC to be interpreted as meaning that an employer, such as...

Case C-414/16. Religious discrimination

Is Article 4(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC to be interpreted as meaning that an employer, such as...

2016/54 Dismissing a Christian teacher for refusing to separate from her husband following conviction for sex offences was indirect religious discrimination (UK)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has upheld an appeal against the finding that a committed Christian teacher who refused to separate from her husband following his conviction for sexual offences would have been dismissed regardless of her faith and therefore such a dismissal was not indirectly discriminatory. The EAT found instead that the Claimant was presented with the choice of having to separate from her husband or be dismissed which subjected people who have a faith-based commitment to marriage to a particular disadvantage.

2016/39 Not selecting a candidate for a job on account of her veil was directly discriminatory on grounds of religion (IT)

A staffing agency rejected an application for an advertised job because the applicant refused to remove her hijab. The court of first instance saw no discrimination, the Court of Appeal did. The plaintiff was awarded €500 but had to bear her own legal expenses.

2016/39 Not selecting a candidate for a job on account of her veil was directly discriminatory on grounds of religion (IT)

A staffing agency rejected an application for an advertised job because the applicant refused to remove her hijab. The court of first instance saw no discrimination, the Court of Appeal did. The plaintiff was awarded €500 but had to bear her own legal expenses.

2016/25 Prohibition against displaying religious symbols breaches anti-discrimination legislation for lack of proportionality (BE)

A general prohibition against displaying religious, political and philosophical symbols constitutes indirect discrimination which fails to meet the proportionality requirement. In this case the court took account of the fact that it was possible for the employer to distinguish between back-office and front-office work (the claimant worked in a back office position) and also because of the absence of complaints by colleagues or clients and the absence of any attempt by the claimant to encourage other women to wear a headscarf.

2016/25 Prohibition against displaying religious symbols breaches anti-discrimination legislation for lack of proportionality (BE)

A general prohibition against displaying religious, political and philosophical symbols constitutes indirect discrimination which fails to meet the proportionality requirement. In this case the court took account of the fact that it was possible for the employer to distinguish between back-office and front-office work (the claimant worked in a back office position) and also because of the absence of complaints by colleagues or clients and the absence of any attempt by the claimant to encourage other women to wear a headscarf.