This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/world/europe/eu-legal-opinion-upholds-employers-ban-on-head-scarves.html
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| E.U. Legal Opinion Upholds Employer’s Ban on Head Scarves | E.U. Legal Opinion Upholds Employer’s Ban on Head Scarves |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| LONDON — A company can bar a Muslim female employee from wearing a head scarf at work, as long as the policy applies to all religious garb and does not single out Islam, according to an advisory opinion that the European Union’s highest court released on Tuesday. | LONDON — A company can bar a Muslim female employee from wearing a head scarf at work, as long as the policy applies to all religious garb and does not single out Islam, according to an advisory opinion that the European Union’s highest court released on Tuesday. |
| The opinion was handed down in a case brought by a Muslim woman in Belgium, Samira Achbita, who was fired from her job as a receptionist at a security company. It comes as Europe struggles with the role of Islam in the public sphere, a debate fueled in recent years by rising immigration, the refugee crisis and concerns about terrorism. | |
| Juliane Kokott, an advocate general with the European Court of Justice, wrote in the opinion that a ban on head scarves “does not constitute direct discrimination based on religion,” which would violate European regulations, “if that ban is founded on a general company rule prohibiting visible political, philosophical and religious symbols in the workplace, and not on stereotypes or prejudice against one or more particular religions or against religious beliefs in general.” | Juliane Kokott, an advocate general with the European Court of Justice, wrote in the opinion that a ban on head scarves “does not constitute direct discrimination based on religion,” which would violate European regulations, “if that ban is founded on a general company rule prohibiting visible political, philosophical and religious symbols in the workplace, and not on stereotypes or prejudice against one or more particular religions or against religious beliefs in general.” |
| The opinion is not the final word on the matter; a formal judgment is expected later this year. But advisory opinions are usually a reliable guide to the thinking of the court, which is based in Luxembourg and interprets European law for the 28-nation union. The court’s powers have expanded as a result of the 2009 Lisbon Treaty; where once it focused mostly on trade and competition cases, it now has oversight in areas like civil rights as well. | The opinion is not the final word on the matter; a formal judgment is expected later this year. But advisory opinions are usually a reliable guide to the thinking of the court, which is based in Luxembourg and interprets European law for the 28-nation union. The court’s powers have expanded as a result of the 2009 Lisbon Treaty; where once it focused mostly on trade and competition cases, it now has oversight in areas like civil rights as well. |
| The European Court of Human Rights issued a similar decision in 2014, upholding a 2011 ban on the public wearing of face-covering veils in France, where the debate over displays of religion has been especially heated. That court, based in Strasbourg, France, found that the ban was a legitimate attempt to preserve the norms of France’s diverse society and its tradition of secularism, and did not violate the European Convention on Human Rights. | The European Court of Human Rights issued a similar decision in 2014, upholding a 2011 ban on the public wearing of face-covering veils in France, where the debate over displays of religion has been especially heated. That court, based in Strasbourg, France, found that the ban was a legitimate attempt to preserve the norms of France’s diverse society and its tradition of secularism, and did not violate the European Convention on Human Rights. |
| Unlike the Strasbourg court’s rulings, which are only advisory, the decisions of the European Court of Justice are binding on member states, making Ms. Achbita’s case a closely watched one. The court is also considering a related case involving a French information technology engineer who was dismissed after refusing to remove her veil at the request of a client. | Unlike the Strasbourg court’s rulings, which are only advisory, the decisions of the European Court of Justice are binding on member states, making Ms. Achbita’s case a closely watched one. The court is also considering a related case involving a French information technology engineer who was dismissed after refusing to remove her veil at the request of a client. |
| Ms. Achbita had worked for her company, G4S, for three years before raising the issue of the head scarf and insisting that she be allowed to wear it at work. She sued the company, with support from the Belgian Center for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism. That case is still before the courts in Belgium, but the country’s Court of Cassation asked the European Court of Justice for clarification about what European law requires. The opinion on Tuesday was part of the court’s response. | Ms. Achbita had worked for her company, G4S, for three years before raising the issue of the head scarf and insisting that she be allowed to wear it at work. She sued the company, with support from the Belgian Center for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism. That case is still before the courts in Belgium, but the country’s Court of Cassation asked the European Court of Justice for clarification about what European law requires. The opinion on Tuesday was part of the court’s response. |
| Dr. Kokott, who is a German legal scholar, cautioned that the advisory opinion was not intended to give a blanket license for companies to prohibit religious garb on the job. Such bans may, in fact, amount to indirect discrimination on the basis of religion, she wrote, but “such discrimination may be justified in order to enforce a policy of religious and ideological neutrality.” | Dr. Kokott, who is a German legal scholar, cautioned that the advisory opinion was not intended to give a blanket license for companies to prohibit religious garb on the job. Such bans may, in fact, amount to indirect discrimination on the basis of religion, she wrote, but “such discrimination may be justified in order to enforce a policy of religious and ideological neutrality.” |
| To justify that, she wrote, employers must follow the principle of “proportionality.” In particular, workplace bans on religious garb must take into account the size and conspicuousness of the religious symbol, the nature of the employee’s work, the context in which the employee has to perform that work and the national identity of the country involved, Dr. Kokott wrote. (Like all European Union institutions, the court is sensitive to the variations in tradition and history among the bloc’s member nations.) | To justify that, she wrote, employers must follow the principle of “proportionality.” In particular, workplace bans on religious garb must take into account the size and conspicuousness of the religious symbol, the nature of the employee’s work, the context in which the employee has to perform that work and the national identity of the country involved, Dr. Kokott wrote. (Like all European Union institutions, the court is sensitive to the variations in tradition and history among the bloc’s member nations.) |
| The opinion urged the Belgian Court of Cassation to balance those factors — including Belgium’s national identity — in ruling on Ms. Achbita’s case. | The opinion urged the Belgian Court of Cassation to balance those factors — including Belgium’s national identity — in ruling on Ms. Achbita’s case. |
| The issue of religious attire in the workplace is hardly limited to Europe and Islam. In the United States, it has come up in the context of an Orthodox Jewish recruit to the Coast Guard who wanted to wear a skullcap on duty; an Army officer of the Sikh faith who sought to wear a turban while in uniform; and a Muslim woman who was denied a job by the clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch because she wore a head scarf. The Supreme Court ruled, 8 to 1, last year that the woman, Samantha Elauf, was entitled to sue the company under federal employment discrimination law. | The issue of religious attire in the workplace is hardly limited to Europe and Islam. In the United States, it has come up in the context of an Orthodox Jewish recruit to the Coast Guard who wanted to wear a skullcap on duty; an Army officer of the Sikh faith who sought to wear a turban while in uniform; and a Muslim woman who was denied a job by the clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch because she wore a head scarf. The Supreme Court ruled, 8 to 1, last year that the woman, Samantha Elauf, was entitled to sue the company under federal employment discrimination law. |