Back in 2017, the CJEU ruled in cases C-157/15 and C-188/15 that private employers may prohibit staff from wearing visible religious symbols, including Islamic headscarves, under certain conditions namely to project a public image of neutrality and not in a manner that could be considered indirect discrimination. Since the ruling, employers began inserting neutrality clauses into internal regulations prohibiting the visible wearing of any political, philosophical, or religious sign in the workplace. The exact validity of these neutrality clauses is still unclear.
However, recently, two national courts in Germany each submitted questions regarding religious-neutrality policies to the CJEU for preliminary rulings.
In the first case C-804/18, a special needs teacher of Muslim faith was asked to remove her headscarf on two occasions and when she refused, her employer issued her two warnings and put them on her personnel file. The employer relied on the ideological neutrality policy that it had in place which prohibited all employees from wearing any religious signs while in contract with parents, children, and third parties. She took legal action challenging the instruction and requested that the employer remove the warnings from her personnel file.
In the second case C-341/19, a drugstore employee of Muslim faith was asked to remove her headscarf and when she refused, her employer assigned her to another position “for which she was not required to remove her headscarf”. At that time, the employer had no neutrality policy in place. Subsequently, the employer issued the employee with a directive instructing her not to wear ideological signs at the workplace. The employee challenged the directive, arguing that it was invalid.
The CJEU re-confirmed on 15 July 2021 that a prohibition on wearing any visible form of expression of political, philosophical, or religious beliefs in the workplace may be justified by the employer’s need to project a public image of neutrality and/or to prevent social disputes. However, it added that justification must correspond to a genuine need from the employer, and national courts may take into account the specific context of their member state when reconciling rights and interests at issue.
Click on the links above to read the judgments in full.