Brussels : europe and the arabs

There is no direct discrimination when a company indiscriminately prohibits all its employees from visibly wearing religious, ideological or spiritual signs.

According to the Belgian news agency reported Thursday, which added  :The European Court of Justice answered this on Thursday to a preliminary question from Belgium.
The Court considered a question from the French-speaking labor court in Brussels, which must rule on a dispute between a Muslim woman and a company that manages social housing. The woman applied for an internship, but the company did not consider her because she had indicated during an interview that she would not take off her headscarf.

After all, the company has embedded a strict neutrality policy in its work regulations. Even when the woman suggested wearing a different type of head covering a few weeks later, his position remained unchanged. No headgear is allowed in the offices, be it a cap, hat or a headscarf, it was said.

Discrimination

The woman went to court because, in her opinion, the refusal was based directly or indirectly on her religious convictions and therefore concerned a violation of the anti-discrimination law. The Belgian court then wanted to know from the Court whether a ban on a sign or piece of clothing with a religious connotation constitutes direct discrimination on the grounds of religion.

In its judgment, the Court confirmed that an employer may prohibit the wearing of a headscarf if the neutrality policy is included in the work regulations and the prohibition on the expression of religious or ideological convictions "applies generally and without distinction to all employees". In that case, there is no direct discrimination, the Court stated in a press release.

The European courts do add that there may be an indirect difference in treatment if the apparently neutral obligation in fact amounts to a special disadvantage for persons who adhere to a particular religion or belief. That is for the national court to verify.

According to the Court, a difference in treatment does not necessarily have to constitute indirect discrimination if the employer can justify this objectively with a legitimate aim and does so with means that are "appropriate" and "necessary". A neutrality policy can be such an aim, but it is not sufficient in itself to justify an indirect difference in treatment. The employer must then demonstrate that there is a real need.