Sign Up for a Free Newsela Account

It's free to read Newsela. Sign up and get unlimited access to read every article at every reading level.

LAW
 

EU court rules against headscarves if employers ban all religious symbols

Two women wearing headscarves are walking in Vienna, Austria, December 1, 2016. Photo by: Alex Domanski/Getty Images

PARIS, France — The European Union Court of Justice has made a decision in favor of a headscarf ban in workplaces. They said that private businesses can forbid female Muslim employees from wearing their headscarves. However, they can only do this if the company has a policy that prohibits all religious symbols. Companies cannot ban the headscarves in order to target a particular religion, according to the court. 

The court decided that such a ban is not what it calls "direct discrimination." Direct discrimination is when a group of people is treated unfairly because of their specific background or beliefs. 

The European Union Court of Justice is the highest court in the 28-nation European Union. The European Union works together in trade and economic matters, and all members must follow EU law. The Court of Justice makes decisions about these laws. It also offers advice to the supreme courts of member countries. 

Decision Based On Cases Brought By Women Who Were Fired

The decision of the court was in response to two cases. One was brought by a Belgian woman and the other by a French woman. Both women were fired for refusing to remove their headscarves. It makes clear that the bans some countries have on religious symbols in classrooms can also be applied to the workplace. 

The court's response fed right into the French presidential campaign, boosting the platforms of Marine Le Pen. She is a leading candidate in the spring presidential election. Le Pen belongs to a political party that is against immigration and wants to make stricter laws with harsh punishments. She wants to do away with all religious symbols. 

France already bans headscarves and other religious symbols in classrooms as well as face-covering veils in streets.

Critics Of Ban Are Concerned About Unfair Treatment

Critics quickly voiced their fears. They are concerned that the decision will be a setback to all working Muslim women. They believe it will allow employers to treat people unfairly based on their religious beliefs and appearance. 

"Today's disappointing rulings ... give greater leeway to employers to discriminate against women — and men — on the grounds of religious belief," said a statement by the human rights group Amnesty International. "At a time when identity and appearance has become a political battleground, people need more protection against prejudice, not less."

Georgina Siklossy works at the European Network Against Racism in Belgium. She expressed concern about the effects the ban will have on Muslim women and other minority populations in Europe. It might force many of them to choose between working and wearing religious clothing. Another disappointed group is the Open Society Justice Initiative. They work with lawyers and courts to promote human rights and more tolerant societies. 

The group's policy officer, Maryam Hmadoum, argued that the decision goes against the EU's long-standing guarantee of equality. The Court of Justice pointed to this promise in weighing the cases.

Two Cases Differed In Terms Of Why The Women Were Fired

The EU Court of Justice made separate decisions on the cases but linked them in the end. They were referred to the Court of Justice by the lower courts of Cassation in Belgium and France. The courts of Cassation are the highest courts in the individual countries, like the Supreme Court in the United States. 

In the Belgian case, Samira Achbita was a receptionist at a security firm. She was fired in June 2006, for wearing an Islamic headscarf. The headscarf was banned in a new set of rules at her company that prohibited visible signs of political, religious or philosophical beliefs. Belgium's Court of Cassation sought more help from the higher Court of Justice.

The French case is a bit different. Asma Bougnaoui was fired not because of company rules but because a customer complained about being unhappy with Bougnaoui's headscarf. 

The court said that an employer's desire to take into account the wishes of a customer does not qualify under their new ruling. 

"The question asked was, 'Is it enough for a client to say "it bothers me that you are sending me a veiled employee"?' ... The (court) answered, 'No, this is not enough,'" said Bougnaoui's lawyer, Waquet. 

Although France and Belgium went to the Court of Justice for help, the home courts must still rule on each case.

Sign up for a free account to read the full article.
Related Articles:
Related Text Sets:

Quiz

1030L

You must be a registered user

to submit quizzes.

1
Anchor 1: What the Text Says

Which section of the article highlights the idea that the decision of the European Union Court of Justice could possibly lead to more discrimination against Muslim women?

A

Introduction [paragraphs 1-3]

B

"Decision Based On Cases Brought By Women Who Were Fired"

C

"Critics Of Ban Are Concerned About Unfair Treatment"

D

"Two Cases Differed In Terms Of Why The Women Were Fired"

2
Anchor 1: What the Text Says

Which paragraph in the section "Two Cases Differed In Terms Of Why The Women Were Fired" MOST suggests that the EU Court of Justice does NOT have the final say on the two cases?

3
Anchor 6: Point of View/Purpose

How does the author convey the importance of the ruling made by the European Union Court of Justice?

A

by pointing out that the decision affects all 28 nations belonging to the European Union

B

by describing how the decision has hurt the campaign of a political party in France

C

by stating that the court initially made two separate decisions on the cases about headscarves

D

by explaining why different groups think the decision will protect against prejudice

4
Anchor 6: Point of View/Purpose

How does the viewpoint of Marine Le Pen compare with the viewpoint of Georgina Siklossy?

A

Le Pen wants immigrants to have more protections; Siklossy thinks they have too many protections.

B

Le Pen argues for more tolerance of immigrants; Siklossy also thinks there should be more tolerance of immigrants.

C

Le Pen thinks some religious symbols should be allowed; Siklossy thinks all religious symbols should be allowed.

D

Le Pen supports the decision of the EU Court of Justice; Siklossy is disappointed by the decision.

Write

1030L
{{ answers_for_review[0].student.user.first_name }} {{ answers_for_review[0].student.user.last_name }}
Write Preview

Write is a feature that allows students to answer open-ended questions. Teachers are able to customize which questions they want to ask their students.


Sample Prompt

Write a short paragraph that explains the central idea of the article. Use at least two details from the article to support your response.

Escriba un párrafo corto que explique la idea central del artículo. Use al menos dos detalles del artículo para apoyar su respuesta.

Select a class for your response
{{classroom.name}} / {{teacher.user.last_name}},
Edit Prompt
Your Prompt
Default

Note: Some of your students have already responded to the default prompt. You are editing a prompt that students have already written against. Editing the prompt now may affect the meaning of existing student work.


Recommended Annotation Visible only to you
     
Annotate

Unable to save at this time.