Two highly anticipated cases involving the legality of banning headscarves in the workplace were decided by the ECJ this week.

Achbita and anor v. G4S Secure Solutions NV (Case C-157/15) involved a company that provided security, guarding and reception services. The employee handbook stated that employees were not permitted to wear any religious, political or philosophical symbols while on duty. An employee, after three years of working for the company, decided that she wanted to start wearing a headscarf. The employee was eventually dismissed for refusing to remove the headscarf.

Bougnaoui and anor v. Micropole SA (Case C-188/15) involved an IT engineer who was told by her employer that she would not be able to wear her headscarf at all times. There was not, however, a blanket prohibition on the wearing of visible signs of political, philosophical or religious belief. The employee went on a site visit and wore a headscarf. The customer complained to the company about the fact that she had worn a headscarf and requested that she did not do so in the future. The company raised this issue with the employee; however, the employee refused to comply with the customer's request. She was then dismissed.

The ECJ held:

  • In relation to a blanket prohibition:

    • that a company rule prohibiting the wearing of visible signs of political, philosophical or religious belief without distinction is not directly discriminatory;
    • that such a blanket prohibition may give rise to indirect discrimination but this may be objectively justified by an employer's policy of neutrality; and
    • that the policy of neutrality was an objective justification only if it applied solely to customer-facing roles.
  • Where there is no blanket prohibition

    • if in response to a customer complaint about the wearing of a headscarf an employer bans the wearing of headscarves, this will be discrimination; and
    • such discrimination will not be capable of being justified on the basis of a "genuine and determining occupational requirement" under Article 4 of the EU Equal Treatment Framework Directive.

There has been much press commentary on these cases. This has included criticism that these cases could cause confusion as to which religious symbols can be worn at work, particularly when the judgment is contrasted with findings in the European Court of Human Rights that allowed the wearing of crosses at work. An additional complexity for the UK is that, with Brexit looming, the status of such case law in the longer term is uncertain. However, what is clear is that these cases highlight the need for companies to carefully consider their approach to the wearing of visible signs of political, philosophical or religious beliefs and the need to ensure that any polices they apply that restrict such wearing are strictly necessary. Clearly a balance needs to be struck between employees' religious freedoms and legitimate business aims.

Dentons is the world's first polycentric global law firm. A top 20 firm on the Acritas 2015 Global Elite Brand Index, the Firm is committed to challenging the status quo in delivering consistent and uncompromising quality and value in new and inventive ways. Driven to provide clients a competitive edge, and connected to the communities where its clients want to do business, Dentons knows that understanding local cultures is crucial to successfully completing a deal, resolving a dispute or solving a business challenge. Now the world's largest law firm, Dentons' global team builds agile, tailored solutions to meet the local, national and global needs of private and public clients of any size in more than 125 locations serving 50-plus countries. www.dentons.com.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.