Source: https://ilg2.org/2017/07/10/court-of-justice-of-the-european-union-takes-on-muslim-headscarf-employment-discrimination-cases/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 20:12:40+00:00

Document:
It has been approximately four months since the decisions came out and many are still left confused. In some ways, the CJEU discussion parallels historical cases in the United States with regards to facially neutral laws and policies being reviewed for disparate impact against a specific group of people as violations of non-discrimination acts.
However, these CJEU decisions leave the door open for wider interpretations. In Achbita, the company justified the employee’s dismissal by saying that the perception of its neutrality would be compromised by the wearing of the headscarf, while the Bougnaoui case says that complaints from customers about their employee wearing the headscarf does not determine an occupational requirement and therefore may be considered discriminatory. The distinction may be difficult to grasp, with no clarification on what constitutes indirect discrimination, a legitimate aim and means to achieving such an aim.
Achbita gives credence to an underlying assumption that the public cannot distinguish between the neutrality of a company and a company’s respect for its employee to manifest his/her own specific beliefs. This type of understanding of the public’s nature makes outwardly religious individuals more vulnerable to indirect discrimination under seemingly facially neutral rules.
The Bougnaoui case is only distinguished from Achbita by the absence of a facially neutral rule existing at the company with relation to the occupational requirements. In essence, this distinction only encourages businesses to adopt facially neutral rules regarding the visible expression of beliefs (i.e. religious clothing) with regards to their employees, in order to protect it from related discrimination lawsuits.
The CJEU missed an opportunity to state that the freedom of religion enshrined in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) protects individuals practicing their beliefs publicly and privately. Moreover, the CJEU did not strongly consider that Muslim women who wear the headscarf might be put at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons because of the visible nature of the headscarf. This was left to the national courts to review though the CJEU could have provided more guidance in this area.
The lack of clarity from the CJEU has far-reaching implications. The outcome of the recent French Presidential election, for instance, resulted in over 30% of the vote for Marine Le Pen from the Nationalist Front party. While she did not win, the elections are evidence that her policies, which may have been considered extreme 20 years ago, are becoming more acceptable. The debate over the definition of secularism and freedom of religion has never been more important to the future of underrepresented groups in Europe. I imagine the CJEU and European Court of Human Rights will have many more opportunities to clarify their legal analysis and position with respect in this area.
Jennifer Ismat is a lawyer in New York and has spent the past 7 years working as an independent consultant with universities and international organizations. She received her Bachelors degree in Political Science and International Relations at Syracuse University and her Masters degree in Global Affairs from New York University. She also earned her J.D. in Law from St. John’s University School of Law. She is currently the Editor-in-Chief of the New York International Law Review. All opinions expressed in this post are the author’s own.

References: CJEU 
 CJEU 
 CJEU 
 CJEU 
 CJEU 
 CJEU 
 CJEU