Abstract
In March 2017, almost seventeen years after the adoption of Directive 2000/78/EC establishing the general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its two first and long-awaited judgments concerning the manifestation of beliefs in the workplace in the cases Achbita (Case C-157/15) and Bougnaoui (Case C-188/15). Both cases concern Muslim women employees in private companies who had been dismissed for wearing a headscarf at work. The purpose of this chapter is to explore from a comparative perspective how protection against discrimination on the grounds of religion and freedom of religion is granted in the workplace, and how protection is expanded or restricted in light of concepts such as ‘neutrality’ or ‘undue hardship’. The focus of the chapter is the private workplace, but references (where relevant) are made to rules governing the public sector. After a short introduction on the international legal framework, the chapter examines how freedom of religion and protection against discrimination are regulated in Europe under the European Convention on Human Rights and in EU law. The second part sheds light on the USA and Canada’s safeguards against religious discrimination in labour relations, analysing the scope of protection and its limits. The contribution concludes with a comparison of the systems examined in order to establish whether and to what extent similar tensions can be identified and whether a convergence of solutions is suitable and possible in the future.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Case C-157/15 Achbita v. G4S; Case C-188/15 Bougnaoui v. Micropole.
- 2.
General Assembly resolution 217/A.
- 3.
General Assembly resolution 36/55.
- 4.
General Comment No. 22: Article 18 (Freedom of Thought, Conscience or Religion) Adopted at the Forty-eighth Session of the Human Rights Committee, on 30 July 1993 CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4, General Comment No. 22. (General Comments), available at www.refworld.org/docid/453883fb22.html.
- 5.
Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Tackling religious intolerance and discrimination in the workplace, A/69/261, 5 August 2014, available at www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Religion/A.69.261.pdf.
- 6.
Article 10 of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion in the same way as the Convention.
- 7.
Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, Official Journal L 303, 02/12/2000 P. 0016-0022.
- 8.
Article 52.3 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
- 9.
Article 2.5 of the Employment Directive.
- 10.
Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
- 11.
Article 19 ECHR.
- 12.
Kokkinakis v Greece, 25 May 1993, App. No. 14307/88, § 31.
- 13.
Kokkinakis v Greece § 31.
- 14.
Arrowsmith v United Kingdom, 16 May 1977, App. No. 7050/75; Pichon and Sajous v France, 2 October 2001, App. No. 49853/99.
- 15.
Eweida and others v United Kingdom, 15 January 2013, App. Nos. 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10 and 36516/10, § 82.
- 16.
Namely, as listed in Article 9(2): interest public safety, protection of public order, health or morals and the protection of the rights and freedom of others. Member States do in fact rely on all the aims mentioned in Article 9(2) to justify measures limiting the freedom of religion.
- 17.
Sefir v Greece, 14 December 1999, App. no. 38178/97.
- 18.
Leyla Şahin v Turkey, 10 November 2005, App. No. 44774/98, § 109.
- 19.
Leyla Şahin v Turkey § 109.
- 20.
Dogru v France, 4 December 2008, App. No. 27058/05.
- 21.
Kervanci v France, 4 December 2008, App. No. 31645/04.
- 22.
Dogru v France § 63.
- 23.
Köse and Others v Turkey, 24 January 2006, App. No. 26625/02.
- 24.
Dogru v France §§ 71–72.
- 25.
Dahlab v Switzerland, 15 February 2001, App no. 42393/98.
- 26.
Dahlab v Switzerland.
- 27.
Eweida v United Kingdom.
- 28.
The ‘freedom to resign’ theory, developed by the European Commission on Human Rights, represented for long time a cornerstone of the interpretation of Article 9. X. (Ahmad) v. UK, 12 March 1981, App. No. 8160/78: Stedman v. UK, 9 April 1997, App. No. 29107/95 and Francesco Sessa v. Italy, 3 April 2012, App. No 28790/08.
- 29.
Eweida v United Kingdom § 82.
- 30.
See Eweida v United Kingdom § 83 where the Court states that “where an individual complains of a restriction on freedom of religion in the workplace, rather than holding that the possibility of changing job would negate any interference with the right, the better approach would be to weigh that possibility in the overall balance when considering whether or not the restriction was proportionate”.
- 31.
Eweida v United Kingdom § 94.
- 32.
Ebrahimian v France, 26 November 2015, App. no. 64846/11.
- 33.
Leyla Şahin v Turkey §§ 163–166.
- 34.
The other grounds falling within the scope of the Directive are the age, disability and sexual orientation. See Articles 2.2(a) and 2.2(b) of the Employment Directive for the definitions of direct and indirect discrimination.
- 35.
Article 2.5, Employment Directive.
- 36.
Article 4.1, Employment Directive.
- 37.
In this sense see Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C-188/15 Bougnaoui and ADDH v Micropole SA, § 95 and following.
- 38.
Case C-157/15 Achbita v. G4S; Case C-188/15 Bougnaoui v. Micropole.
- 39.
Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C-157/15 Samira Achbita and Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding v G4S Secure Solutions NV, § 81; Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C-188/15, § 109 and following.
- 40.
Advocate General's Opinion in Case C-157/15, §§ 48–49.
- 41.
Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C-188/15, § 88.
- 42.
Article 2(2)(b) of the Employment Directive.
- 43.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Questions and Answers: Religious Discrimination in the Workplace, available at www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html.
- 44.
Title VII provides also for an exemption for ‘bona fide occupational qualifications’ that enables employers to impose requirements on staff where it is necessary for the particular job’s requirement.
- 45.
Griggs v Duke Power Company 401 US 424 (1971).
- 46.
This possibility is open only in cases of indirect discrimination; direct discrimination is impossible to justify. See Civil Rights Act 1964, s 703(k)(2).
- 47.
See also Griggs v Duke Power Company ibid.
- 48.
The Equality Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal agency responsible for enforcing the prohibition of discrimination in employment, introduced it in its guidelines in 1968. For more information visit: www.eeoc.gov/.
- 49.
SEC. 2000e. [Section 701] j.
- 50.
See also EEOC v Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc 135 S. Ct. 2028 (2015) about a Muslim woman who was not hired by the clothing store that operates a Look Policy prohibiting the wearing of ‘caps’.
- 51.
Trans World Airlines, Inc v Hardison 432 US 63 (1977).
- 52.
Ansonia Board of Education v Philbrook 479 U.S. 60 (1986).
- 53.
EEOC v Alamo Rent-A-Car LLC, 432 F.Supp. 2d 1006, 1016 (D Ariz 2006); See also EEOC v Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. 135 S. Ct. 2028 (2015).
- 54.
Cloutier v Costco 390 F 3d 126 (2004).
- 55.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is one part of the Canadian Constitution. The Charter sets out those rights and freedoms that Canadians believe are necessary in a free and democratic society. The Charter is available at www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html.
- 56.
The Canadian Human Rights Act’s express goal is of extending the law to ensure equal opportunity to individuals who may be victims of discriminatory practices based on a set of prohibited grounds such as religious belief. The Act is available at www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/.
- 57.
Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem [2004] 2 SCR 551; Re Funk and Manitoba Labour Board (1976) 66 DLR (3d); Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony v Alberta (2007) ABCA 160.
- 58.
An exception exists where there is a bona fide occupational requirement to be of the particular religion. The employer must prove that there is a legitimate reason for imposing a religious requirement on the job. See for instance Bhinder v Canadian National Railway [1985] 2 SCR 561.
- 59.
An exception exists where there is a bona fide occupational requirement.
- 60.
Ontario Human Rights Commission (O'Malley) v Simpson-Sears Limited [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536, pp. 554–555.
- 61.
Central Okanagan School District No 23 v Renaud [1992] 2 SCR 970.
- 62.
British Columbia (Public Service Employee relations Comm) v BCGEU [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3.
- 63.
Central Alberta Dairy Pool v Alberta.
- 64.
Chambly (Commission Scolaire Regionale) v Bergevin [1994] 2 SCR 525.
- 65.
Chambly (Commission Scolaire Regionale) v Bergevin [1994] 2 SCR 525.
- 66.
Central Okanagan School District No 23 v Renaud [1992] 2 S.C.R. 970.
- 67.
Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem, [2004] SCC 47, 2 SCR 551; Congrégation des témoins de Jéhova de St-Jérôme – Lafonataine v Lafontaine (Village), 2004 SCC 48, 2 SCR 650; Bruker v Marcovitz, 2007 SCC 54, 3 SCR 607; and Multani v Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys, 2006 SCC 6, 1 SCR 256.
- 68.
Multani v Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys.
- 69.
Multani v Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys.
- 70.
For more information about how to make an application to the ECHR, see for example: CCBE, The European Court of Human Rights—Questions & answers for lawyers, September 2016, available at www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/speciality_distribution/public/documents/PD_STRAS/PDS_Guides_recommendations/EN_PDS_20161021_The-European-Court-of-Human-Rights-Questions-Answers-for-Lawyers.pdf.
- 71.
Article 267 TFEU.
- 72.
The Author makes reference to the arguments used in Leyla Şahin v. Turkey where the Court noted that the wearing of the headscarf may put other students under pressure to adopt more fundamentalists approaches to faith; and in SAS v France (App no 43835/11, ECtHR, 1 July 2014) where the ‘rights of others’ was defined even more broadly referring to ‘le vivre ensemble’ as a possible justification for banning in public spaces the full-face veil as long as proportionate.
- 73.
Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Case C-157/15 ibid. § 99.
- 74.
Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, ibid.
- 75.
Thlimmenos v Greece,6 April 2000, App. no. 34369/97.
- 76.
Case C-130/75 Vivien Prais.
References
Alidadi K (2012a) Muslim women made redundant: unintended signals in Belgian and Dutch case law on religious dress in private sector employment and unemployment. In: Alidadi K, Foblets M, Vrielink J (eds) A test of faith? Religious diversity and accommodation in the European workplace. Ashgate, Farnham-Burlington, pp 245–282
Alidadi K (2012b) Reasonable accommodations for religion and belief: adding value to Article 9 ECHR and the European Union’s anti-discrimination approach to employment? Eur Law Rev 37(6):693–715
Bader V, Alidadi K, Vermeulen F (2013) Religious diversity and reasonable accommodation in the workplace in six European countries: an introduction. Int J Discrimination Law 13(2–3):54–82
Beaman LG (2012) Introduction, exploring reasonable accommodation. In: Beaman LG (ed) Reasonable accommodation, managing religious diversity. UBC Press, Vancouver-Toronto, pp 1–12
Bouchar G, Taylor C (2008) Building the future—a time for reconciliation. Available at www.mce.gouv.qc.ca/publications/CCPARDC/rapport-final-integral-en.pdf
Brems E (2015) Ebrahimian v France: headscarf ban upheld for entire public sector. Strasbourg observer. Available at www.strasbourgobservers.com/2015/11/27/ebrahimian-v-france-headscarf-ban-upheld-for-entire-public-sector/
Brems E (2017) Analysis: European court of justice allows bans on religious dress in the workplace. Blog of the IACL, AIDC. Available at www.iacl-aidc-blog.org/2017/03/25/analysis-european-court-of-justice-allows-bans-on-religious-dress-in-the-workplace/
Bribosia E, Ringelheim J, Rorive I (2010) Reasonable accommodation for religious minorities: a promising concept for european discrimination law? Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 17:137–161
Caceres G (2012) A perspective from across the Atlantic: “the faith at work” movement in the United States. A new management model for religious diversity in the European workplace? In: Alidadi K, Foblets M, Vrielink J (eds) A test of faith? Religious diversity and accommodation in the European workplace. Ashgate, Farnham-Burlington, pp 283–316
Gibson M (2013) The God “dilution”? Religion, discrimination and the case for reasonable accommodation. Camb Law J 72(3):578–616
Henrard K (2012) Duties of reasonable accommodation in relation to religion and the European Court of human rights: a closer look at the prohibition of discrimination, the freedom of religion and related duties of state neutrality. Erasmus Law Rev 5(1):59–77
Hervieu N (2013) Un nouvel équilibre européen dans l’appréhension des convictions religieuses au travail. “Actualités Droits-Libertés” du CREDOF. Available at www.revdh.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/nouvel-equilibre-europeen-apprehension-convictions-religieuses-au-travail/
Howard E (2017) Islamic headscarves and the CJEU: Achbita and Bougnaoui. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 24(3):348–366
Loenen T (2009) The headscarf debate, approaching the intersection of sex, religion and race under the European convention on human rights and EC equality law. In: Schiek D, Chege V (eds) European Union non-discrimination law, comparative perspectives on multidimensional equality law. Abingdon-New York, Routledge-Cavendish, pp 313–328
Moon G (2006) From equal treatment to appropriate treatment: what lessons can Canadian equality law on dignity and on reasonable accommodation teach the United Kingdom? Eur Hum Rights Law Rev 6:695–721
Ouald Chaib S (2017) European Court of Justice keeps the door to religious discrimination in the private workplace opened. The European Court of Human Rights could close it. Strasbourg observer. Available at www.strasbourgobservers.com/2017/03/27/european-court-of-justice-keeps-the-door-to-religious-discrimination-in-the-private-workplace-opened-the-european-court-of-human-rights-could-close-it/
Ouald Chaib S, David V (2017) European Court of justice keeps the door to religious discrimination in the private workplace opened. The European Court of human rights could close it. Strasbourg observers. Available at www.strasbourgobservers.com/2017/03/27/european-court-of-justice-keeps-the-door-to-religious-discrimination-in-the-private-workplace-opened-the-european-court-of-human-rights-could-close-it/
Peroni L (2013) Eweida and others v. the United Kingdom (Part I): taking freedom of religion more seriously. Strasbourg observers. Available at www.strasbourgobservers.com/2013/01/17/eweida-and-others-v-the-united-kingdom-part-i-taking-freedom-of-religion-more-seriously/
Pin A (2014) Does Europe need neutrality? The old continent in search of identity. Brigham Young Univ Law Rev 605–634
Romero AC (2013) The European court of human rights: between Christian neutrality and the fear of Islam. N Z J Public Int Law 11(1):75–102
Silbiger SL (1985) Heaven can wait: judicial interpretation of title VII’s religious accommodation requirements since Transworld Airlines v Hardison. Fordham Law Rev 53(4):839–861
Sir Dingemans J, Yeginsu C, Cross T, Masood H (2013) The protections for religious rights: law and practice. OUP, Oxford
Svensson E (2013) The constitutionalization of freedom of religion in the European union: what changes are the charter of fundamental rights expected to bring about? In: Cianitto C, Cole Durham D Jr, Ferrari S, Thayer D (eds) Law, religion, constitution: freedom of religion, equal treatment, and the law. Ashgate, Farnham–Burlington, pp 267–283
Vickers L (2016a) Religious freedom, religious discrimination and the workplace. Hart, Oxford-Portland
Vickers L (2016b) ECJ headscarf series (2): the role of choice; and the margin of appreciation. Strasbourg observers. Available at www.strasbourgobservers.com/2016/09/08/blog-series-the-role-of-choice-and-the-margin-of-appreciation/
Zucca L (2012) A secular Europe, law and religion in the European constitutional landscape. OUP, Oxford
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Garbin, N. (2020). Making Room for Religion in the Workplace in a Diverse Society: A Comparative Perspective. In: Fiorentini, F., Infantino, M. (eds) Mentoring Comparative Lawyers: Methods, Times, and Places . Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 77. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34754-3_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34754-3_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-34753-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-34754-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)