Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Religion, discrimination, the head scarf and labour law

  • Published:
ERA Forum Aims and scope

Abstract

Religion in society and religion in the workplace have recently become highly debated topics in many European countries such as Belgium, France and Germany. The focus of this paper is on religion in labour law in France and in Belgium from an EU law and from a labour law perspective. The main focus will be put on considering the recent headscarf cases in the case law of the European Court of Justice from March 2017 in a broad and comparative perspective. The author underlines the need to find a new balance, in the work context, of conflicting fundamental rights.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. ECtHR 16.12.1992, no. 13710/88, Niemitz v. Germany, para. 29: http://www.hudoc.echr.coe.int.

  2. EUROFOUND [10].

  3. Van Bever [34].

  4. ECSR [11].

  5. Cuypers [8], p. 343–355; Chaib [7], p. 33–58.

  6. Kefer [22], p. 527–583; Vickers [35], p. 13–32.

  7. Nussbaum [28].

  8. Cf. details infra 2.4.

  9. Schiek [22], p. 290–314.

  10. It would essentially mean “the freedom to resign”: Chaib [7], p. 33–58.

  11. Nussbaum [28]; Ringelheim [31]; Yernaux [40].

  12. Nussbaum [28]; Adams, Overbeeke [1].

  13. Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, CJEU C-157/15, Achbita, para. 3, EU:C:2016:382.

  14. Headscarf cases: CJEU C-157/15 Achbita, EU:C:2017:203 (Belgium); CJEU C-188/15, EU:C:2017:204 (France).

  15. Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation OJ L 303, Eur-Lex 32000L0078 (hereinafter referred to as Framework Directive 2000/78).

  16. Cuypers [8].

  17. ECtHR 15.01.2015, nos. 48420/10; 59842/10; 51671/10; 36516/10, Eweida a.o. v. United Kingdom, http://www.hudoc.echr.coe.int.

  18. ECtHR 6.4.2000, no. 34369/97, Thlimmenos v. Greece, http://www.hudoc.echr.coe.int.

  19. Framework Directive 2000/78: Preambule considerations nos. 6, 9, 11.

  20. CJEU 1.12.2016, C-395/15 Daoudi, para. 6, EU:C:2016:917; CJEU 5.7.2012, C-141/11 Hörnfeldt, para. 37, EU:C:2012:421; CJEU 21.7.2011, C-159/10 and C-160/10 Fuchs & Köhler, para. 63, EU:C:2011:508; CJEU 17.7.2008, C-303/06 Coleman, para. 43, EU:C:2008:415; CJEU 11.7.2006, C-13/05 Chacon Navas para.7, EU:C:2006:456.

  21. Iftar (breakfast) is an evening meal during the Islamic month of Ramadan or a meal taken at the first twilight, just after sunset. Iftar is often carried out within the community, where a large number of people gather to complete a day of fasting.

  22. Art. 6 a Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related acts, signed at Amsterdam, 2 October 1997, OJ C 340/115; now: Art. 10, 19 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2012] OJ C 326/47.

  23. ECtHR 5.9.2017, no. 61496/08, Bărbalescu, http://www.hudoc.echr.coe.int.

  24. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation).

  25. Voorhoof, Humblet [37], p. 237–285; Chaib [7], p. 33–58.

  26. Belgian Constitutional Court 12.11.1992, n° 70/92.

  27. Comp. with ECtHR 18.3.2011, no. 30814/06, Lautsi and others v. Italy:http://www.hudoc.echr.coe.int, using the same reasoning concerning crucifixes in schools. The Grand Chamber decided that since they had lost their religious significance for many pupils and parents alike, they could not be offending nonbelievers.

  28. Foblets, Schreiber [12].

  29. Loenen, [25].

  30. Huntington [20].

  31. Even a judge with a turban: see www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Rabinder_Singh.

  32. See images of police officers on Google images: https://www.google.be/search?q=texas+police+officer+turban.

  33. Texte intégral de la Constitution du 4 octobre 1958 en vigueur: ARTICLE PREMIER.

    ‘La France est une République indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale. Elle assure l’égalité devant la loi de tous les citoyens sans distinction d’origine, de race ou de religion. Elle respecte toutes les croyances. Son organisation est décentralisée.

    La loi favorise l’égal accès des femmes et des hommes aux mandats électoraux et fonctions électives, ainsi qu’aux responsabilités professionnelles et sociales’

    Available at:

    http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/la-constitution/la-constitution-du-4-octobre-1958/texte-integral-de-la-constitution-du-4-octobre-1958-en-vigueur.5074.html#preambule.

  34. Peyronnet, Radé, [30].

  35. Confirmed by ECtHR, Gr. Ch., 1.7.2014, no. 43835/11, S.A.S. v. France;http://www.hudoc.echr.coe.int.

  36. Cass. fr. Soc. 19.3.2013, no. 536, (11-28.845), ECLI:FR:CCASS:2013:SO00536.

  37. Cass. fr. Soc. 25.6.2014, no. 612, (13-28.369), ECLI:FR:CCASS:2014:AP00612.

  38. Peyronnet, Radé, [30]; Henette-Vauchez, Valentin [16]; Laronze [24].

  39. Conseil d’Etat/Raad van State, 14.10.2014, nos. 228.748 and 228.750–756; Available only in Dutch at: http://www.raadvanstate.be.

  40. Bundesverfassungsgericht 3.6.2003, 2BvR 1436/02, Available in German at: http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/rs20030924_2bvr143602.html.

  41. Labour Tribunal Tongeren, 2.11.2013, Limburgs Rechtsleven 2013, 55; Chroniques de droit social/Sociale Kronieken 2014, 356.

  42. Bundesverfassungsgericht 30.7.2003, 1BVR 792/03.

  43. Vickers [36].

  44. Kefer [22], p. 542–544.

  45. ECtHR 2.10.2001, no. 49853/99, Pichon and Sajous v. France, http://www.hudoc.echr.coe.int.

  46. ECtHR 15.01.2015, no.s 48420/10; 59842/10; 51671/10; 36516/10, Eweida and others v. United Kingdom, http://www.hudoc.echr.coe.int.

  47. Mitchell, Creegan, Dickens [26], p. 156.

  48. Bribosia, Rorive [4]; Schiek [32].

  49. ECtHR Gr. Ch. 5.09.2017, no. 61496/08, Barbalescu v. Romania; ECtHR 22.02.2018, no. 588/13, Libert v. France, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0222JUD000058813.

  50. Article 5 of Framework Directive 2000/78.

  51. Howard [19].

  52. Vickers [35], p. 13–32; Chaib [7], p. 33–58; Henrard, [17]; Bell, Kjelsstrand, [3], p. 5 and 19.

  53. Lamghari [23].

  54. Mitchell, Creegan, Dickens [26].

  55. ECtHR 29.6.2004, no. 44774/98, Sahin v. Turkey; ECtHR 15.2.2001, no. 42393/98, Dahlab v. Switzerland; ECtHR 30.6.2009, no. 43563/08, Aktas v. France, http://www.hudoc.echr.coe.int.

  56. ECtHR 29/06/2004, no. 44774/98, Sahin v. Turkey, para. 109, http://www.hudoc.echr.coe.int.

  57. Chaib [7], p. 33–58; Henrard [17], p. 59–86; Gonzalez [13], p. 975–991.

  58. Haverkort-Speekenbrink [15], p. 241.

  59. I use employer/undertaking simply as a reminder that an undertaking is substantially more than the employer. The concept of undertaking refers to the collective dimension as well. It is not possible to elaborate on this any further in this paper.

  60. ECtHR 23.9.2010, no. 425/03, Obst v. Germany; ECtHR 23.9.2010, no. 1620/03, Schüthv. Germany; ECtHR 3.2.2011, no. 18136/02, Siebenhaar v. Germany; ECtHR 15.5.2012, no. 56030/07, Martinez v. Spain, http://www.hudoc.echr.coe.int.

  61. ECtHR 23.9.2010, no. 1620/03, Schüthv. Germany, http://www.hudoc.echr.coe.int.

  62. Bribosia, Rorive [4], p. 1032; Peyronnet, Radé [30].

  63. ECtHR 15.1.2015, nos. 48420/10; 59842/10; 51671/10; 36516/10, Eweida and others v. United Kingdom, http://www.hudoc.echr.coe.int.

  64. Vickers [36], p. 220–224.

  65. Bates [2], p. 262–276.

  66. Dorssemont [9].

  67. Dorssemont [9]; Vickers [36], p. 220–224.

  68. Vickers [35], p. 26.

  69. In case: the German AGG (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz), available in English: https://www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/publikationen/AGG/agg_in_englischer_Sprache.pdf;jsessionid=20204642490EDF598EEE1F6647BD7207.1_cid340?__blob=publicationFile&v=6.

  70. Question from BAG, 2° Senat, 28.7.2016, Aktenzeichen 2 AZR 746/16 (A): Juris Das Rechtsportal.

  71. CJEU 17.4.2018, C-414/16 Egenberger, EU:C:2018:257.

  72. CJEU 11.9.2018, C-68/17 IR v. JQ, EU:C:2018:696.

  73. CJEU C-157/15 Achbita, EU:C:2017:203.

  74. Moizard [27].

  75. Busschaert, De Somer [6]; Dorssemont [9].

  76. Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, EU:C:2016:553, para. 104.

  77. Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, CJEU C-157/15, EU:C:2016:382, para. 46 a.f.

  78. Wolmark [39].

  79. Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, CJEU C-157/15, EU:C:2016:382, para. 32.

  80. Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, CJEU C-157/15, EU:C:2016:382, para. 34–38.

  81. Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, CJEU C-157/15, EU:C:2016:382, para. 81.

  82. ECtHR 15.01.2015, nos. 48420/10; 59842/10; 51671/10; 36516/10, Eweida and others v. United Kingdom.

  83. CJEU 17.7.2008, C-303/06 Coleman, EU:C:2008:415.

  84. Van Bever [34].

  85. Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, CJEU C-157/15, EU:C:2016:382, para. 141.

  86. Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, EU:C:2016:553, para. 118.

  87. Dorssemont [9].

  88. CJEU C-157/15 Achbita, EU:C:2017:203, para. 30; Recital 1 Directive 2000/78.

  89. CJEU C-157/15 Achbita, EU:C:2017:203, para. 27–28.

  90. CJEU C-157/15 Achbita, EU:C:2017:203, para. 31.

  91. Vickers [36], p. 220–224; Haverkort-Speekenbrink [15], p. 291.

  92. Pagnerre [29].

  93. CJEU C-157/15 Achbita, EU:C:2017:203, para. 33.

  94. CJEU C-157/15 Achbita, EU:C:2017:203, para. 34.

  95. CJEU C-157/15 Achbita, EU:C:2017:203, para. 36.

  96. CJEU C-157/15 Achbita, EU:C:2017:203, para. 39.

  97. CJEU C-157/15 Achbita, EU:C:2017:203, para. 37.

  98. Article 16 ECFR.

  99. CJEU C-157/15 Achbita, EU:C:2017:203, para. 40.

  100. CJEU C-157/15 Achbita, EU:C:2017:203, para. 41.

  101. Pagnerre [29].

  102. CJEU C-157/15 Achbita, EU:C:2017:203, para. 43.

  103. CJEU C-157/15 Achbita, EU:C:2017:203, para. 43.

  104. Article 5 Directive 2000/78.

  105. Pagnerre [29].

  106. Howard [19]; Busschaert, De Somer [6]; Somek [33], p. 184; ‘It is difficult to imagine a sound justification, for if accommodation is the revealed truth of protection from discrimination it is inconsistent to concede it only to one special group’; Waddington, Hendriks [38]; Henrard, [18] p. 257–295.

  107. Dorssemont [9]; Kefer [22], p. 550–551.

  108. Pagnerre [29]; Bribosia, Rorive [4], p. 1035.

  109. Kefer [22], 527–583; Busschaert, De Somer [6].

  110. Opinion A.G. Sharpston: CJEU C-188/15, EU:C:2017:204, para. 39.

  111. CJEU C-188/15, EU:C:2017:204, para. 40.

  112. See many images on Google Images, showing the Apple-CEO with very casual clothing.

  113. Hanson [14], pp. 334–388: The author describes the story of Commanders Rochefort and Safford. Although these highly intelligent nerds worked in pyjamas and slippers, they broke the Japanese secret code in 1941 providing decisive information at the battles of Midway and Guadalcanal. The American admirals did not bother at all about uniform correctness despite their military ranks: they were only interested in results. According to the author these facts are not an amusing historical detail, but reflect the individualistic and professional way of western strategy that prefers results above appearances and tradition.

  114. Bribosia, Rorive [4].

  115. Haverkort-Speekenbrink [15], p. 297; also Schiek, Lawson [5].

  116. Bribosia, Rorive [4].

  117. Wolmark [39].

  118. Vickers [35], p. 24.

  119. Article 14(2) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (Recast) [2006] OJL L 204/23 provides that

    ‘Member States may provide, as regards access to employment including the training leading thereto, that a difference of treatment which is based on a characteristic related to sex shall not constitute discrimination where, by reason of the nature of the particular occupational activities concerned or of the context in which they are carried out, such a characteristic constitutes a genuine and determining occupational requirement, provided that its objective is legitimate and the requirement is proportionate.’

  120. This explains, in my opinion, why most cases of the CJEU are related to age discrimination. Collective agreements bring the problem to the surface and the written texts provide the judge with a better understanding of the questions and the balancing exercise.

  121. Cf. also conclusions EUROFOUND [10], p. 9.

  122. Somek [33].

  123. Cass. fr. Soc. 22.11.2017, no. 2484, (13-19.855), ECLI:FR:CCASS:2017:SO02484.

  124. Cass.be. 9.10.2017, s.12.0062.N. Available only in Dutch at http://jure.juridat.just.fgov.be/pdfapp/download_blob?idpdf=N-20171009-1.

  125. Lamghari [23]; Mitchell, Creegan, Dickens [26].

  126. In the press the policy change by a large shoe retailer (Torfs Shoes) got substantial attention. Note that the CEO defended his policy on the basis of ‘consumer preference’ in a multicultural society: a beautiful illustration of the ambiguity of the notion ‘consumer preference’.

  127. Kapai [21], p. 42.

  128. CJEU C-54/07 Feryn EU:C:2008:397.

  129. Vickers [36], p. 209–225.

References

  1. Adams, M., Overbeeke, A.J.: The Constitutional Relationship between Law and Religion in the History of Ideas: A Contemporary European Perspective. Global Jurist, Topics, Berkeley Electronic Press 2008/3, Article 4, 24 pp. (2008). Available at: https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/gj.2008.8.3/gj.2008.8.3.1277/gj.2008.8.3.1277.xml

  2. Bates, E.: Activism and self-restraint: the margin of appreciation’s strasbourg career, and its’ coming of age. Hum. Rights Law J. 36, 262–276 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bell, M., Kjelsstrand, S. (eds.): Critical Review of Academic Literature Relating to the EU Directives to Combat Discrimination, European Commission (2004). Available at: http://www.antigone.gr/files/en/library/documentation-of-EU-and-international-organizations/policy-documents/criticrevaclit.pdf

  4. Bribosia, E., Rorive, I.: Affaires Achbita et Bougnaoui: entre neutralité et préjugés. Rev. Trimest. Droits Homme 112, 1017–1037 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Schiek, D., Lawson, A.: European Non-discrimination Law and Intersectionality. Investigating the Triangle of Racial, Gender and Disability Discrimination. Ashgate, Farnham (2012), 329 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Busschaert, G., De Somer, S.: Port des signes convictionnels au travail: la Cour de justice lève le voile? J. Trib. Travail Larcier 1282, 277–283 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chaib, S.O.: Religious accommodation in the workplace: improving the legal reasoning of the European court of human rights. In: Alidadi, K., Foblets, M.C., Vrielink, J. (eds.) A Test of Faith. Religious Diversity and Accommodation in the European Workplace, Farnham, pp. 33–58. Ashgate, Farnham (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cuypers, D.: Culturele minderheden en het Belgische socialezekerheidsrecht. In: Van Manen, N. (ed.) De multiculturele samenleving en het recht, pp. 343–355. Ars Aequi Libri, Nijmegen (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dorssemont, F.: Vrijheid van religie op de werkplaats en het Hof van Justitie: Terug naar cuius region, illius religio. Relig. Samenl. 2016(2), 65–105 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  10. EUROFOUND: Reactivate: Employment opportunities for economically inactive people, 69 pp. (2017). Available at: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_publication/field_ef_document/ef1728en.pdf

  11. ECSR, European Committee of Social Rights, Complaint N° 107/2014, Finnish Society of Social Rights v. Finland. Available at http://hudoc.esc.coe.int

  12. Foblets, M.C., Schreiber, J.P. (eds.): Les assises de l’interculturalité- De Rondetafels van de interculturaliteit. Larcier, Brussels (2013), 592 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gonzales, G.: L’éléphant dans le magasin de porcelaine: entrée remarquée des manifestations de la liberté européenne de religion sur le lieu de travail. Rev. Trimest. Droits Homme 96, 975–991 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hanson, V.D.: Why the West Has Won, pp. 334–388. Clays, New York (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Haverkort-Speekenbrink, S.: European Non-Discrimination Law. Intersentia, Cambridge (2012), 377 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Henette-Vauchez, S., Valentin, V.: L’affaire Baby Loup ou la Nouvelle Laïcité. LGDJ, Paris (2013), 115 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Henrard, K.: A critical appraisal of the margin of appreciation left to states pertaining to “church-state relations” under the jurisprudence of the European court of human rights. In: Alidadi, K., Foblets, M.C., Vrielink, J. (eds.) A Test of Faith. Religious Diversity and Accommodation in the European Workplace, Farnham, pp. 59–86. Ashgate, Farnham (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Henrard, K.: De verhouding tussen de concepten redelijke aanpassing, indirecte discriminatie en proportionaliteit’. In: Bayart, C., Sottiaux, S., Van Drooghenbroeck, S. (eds.) De nieuwe federale antidiscriminatiewetten-Les nouvelles lois luttant contre la discrimination, pp. 257–295, die Keure-La Charte, Brussels (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Howard, E.: Indirect discrimination, reasonable accommodation and religion. In: Cuypers, D., Vrielink, J. (eds.) Equal Is Not Enough, pp. 73–91. Intersentia, Cambridge (2016)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Huntington, S.: Who Are We? The Challenges to American National Identity. Simon & Shuster, New York (2005), 448 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kapai, P.: Building inclusive societies: the role of substantive equality, ideas of justice and deliberative theory. In: Motmans, J., Cuypers, D., et al. (eds.) Equal Is Not Enough: Challenging Differences and Inequalities in Contemporary Societies, pp. 24–42. Wilda/Steunpunt Gelijkekansenbeleid, Antwerp (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kefer, F.: L’expression des convictions religieuses dans les relations de travail. Rev. Droit Soc. 2017(3), 527–583 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lamghari, Y.: L’islam en entreprise. Louvain-la-Neuve, Academia, 145 pp.

  24. Laronze, F.: Affaire Baby Loup: l’épuisement du droit dans sa recherche d’une vision apolitisée de la religion. Droit Soc. 2014(2), 100–105 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Loenen, T.: Accommodation of religion and sex equality in the workplace under the EU equality directives: a double bind for the European court of justice. In: Alidadi, K., Foblets, M.C., Vrielink, J. (eds.) A Test of Faith. Religious Diversity and Accommodation in the European Workplace, Farnham, pp. 103–120. Ashgate, Farnham (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mitchell, M., Creegan, C., Dickens, S.: Management handling of religion and belief in the workplace: challenges and solutions. In: Wright, T., Conley, H. (eds.) Gower Handbook of Discrimination at Work, pp. 155–169. Gower, Farnham (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Moizard, N.: Les toges européennes se déchirent sur le voile au travail. Rev. Droit Trav. 2016(9), 569–570 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nussbaum, M.: The New Religious Intolerance, Overcoming the Politics of Fear in an Anxious Age. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (2012), 304 pp.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Pagnerre, Y.: Liberté de Religion v. Liberté d’Entreprise. Droit Soc. 2017, 450–462 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Peyronnet, M., Radé, C.: The ban of the wearing of the Islamic veil in crèches. Montesquieu Law Rev. 2015(1), 75–85 (2015). Available at: http://www.montesquieulawreview.eu/lr1_content/Rade_lr1.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ringelheim, J.: Religion, Diversity and the workplace: what role for the law? In: Alidadi, K., Foblets, M.C., Vrielink, J. (eds.) A Test of Faith. Religious Diversity and Accommodation in the European Workplace, Farnham, pp. 340–357. Ashgate, Farnham (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Schiek, D.: A new framework on equal treatment of persons in EC law? Eur. Law J. 8, 290–314 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Somek, A.: Engineering Equality p. 184. Oxford University Press, London (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Van Bever, A.: Open normen in het individuele arbeidsrecht. Springer, Berlin (2017), 559 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Vickers, L.: Religious interests in het European workplace: different perspectives. In: Alidadi, K., Foblets, M.C., Vrielink, J. (eds.) A Test of Faith. Religious Diversity and Accommodation in the European Workplace, Farnham, pp. 13–32. Ashgate, Farnham (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Vickers, L.: Freedom of religion and belief. Article 9 ECHR and the EU equality directive. In: Dorssemont, F., Lörcher, K., Schömann, I. (eds.) The European Convention on Human Rights and the Employment Relationship, pp. 209–225. Hart, Oxford (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Voorhoof, D., Humblet, P.: In: Dorssemont, F., Lörcher, K., Schömann, I. (eds.) The European Convention on Human Rights and the Employment Relationship, pp. 237–285. Hart, Oxford (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Waddington, L., Hendriks, A.: The expanding concept of employment discrimination in Europe: from direct and indirect discrimination to reasonable accommodation discrimination. Int. J. Comp. Labour Law Ind. Relat. 18, 403–427 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Wolmark, W.: Neutralité dans l’entreprise ou neutralisation des travailleurs. Droit Ouvrier 825, 226–232 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Yernaux, A.: Les convictions du travailleur et l’entreprise. Kluwer, Waterloo (2014), 129 pp.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law Faculty V. 142, University of Antwerp, Venusstraat 23, 2000, Antwerpen, Belgium

    Daniel Cuypers

Authors
  1. Daniel Cuypers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Cuypers.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Many thanks for the comments received from employers, trade unions and labour law judges in Brussels, Copenhagen and Lisbon at ERA seminars. This article reflects many of their questions and observations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cuypers, D. Religion, discrimination, the head scarf and labour law. ERA Forum 19, 415–448 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-019-00548-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-019-00548-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation