Neutrality and Workplace Restrictions on Headscarves and Religious Dress: Lessons from <i>Achbita</i> and <i>Bougnaoui</i>

Hambler, Andrew

doi:10.1093/indlaw/dwx033

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…359–360), while it may or may not be justified, further underlines this inherent weakness, as does the Court’s reference to the employers’ freedom to conduct a business in defence of discrimination. The skilful critique of the practical limitations of the ban of religious discrimination in academic writing (Cloots, 2018; Hambler, 2018; Howard, 2017; Weiler, 2017) further demonstrates that relying on religion only has fundamental detriments for the rights of the claimants. Even though in the Bougnaoui case both AG Sharpston and the Court declare as unlawful the dismissal on the grounds that a customer wishes to be spared the view of a veil which does not in the slightest impact on her performance, they also open ways to justify such a dismissal.…”

Section: Intersectionality Before the Court Of Justice Of The Europeamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Parris , AG Juliane Kokott supported the recognition of the combined effect of age and sexual orientation, while the two headscarf cases were decided on the basis of religious discrimination only and continue to be debated as such in academic responses (e.g. Cloots, 2018; Hambler, 2018; Howard, 2017; Weiler, 2017). This recent academic discourse contrasts with the feminist academic debate starting in the late 1980s, which identified headscarf discrimination as epitomizing intersectionality (Bilge, 2010; Chapman, 2016; Davis and Zarkow, 2017; Halrynjo and Jonker, 2016; Holzleithner, 2008; Sacksofsky, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On uses, mis-uses and non-uses of intersectionality before the Court of Justice (EU)

Schiek

2018

International Journal of Discrimination and the Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intersectionality, frequently used by political scientists, sociologists and anthropologists as a highly abstract concept, originated as the socio-legal critique, by Kimberlé Crenshaw, of US courts' ignorance of discrimination against Black Women specifically. That ignorance emerged in cases such as DeGraffenreid, in which the claimants challenged a collective redundancy scheme resulting in dismissing all Black Women on grounds of indirect discrimination. The court refused to recognise Black Women as a category of relevance and did not find any discrimination because the scheme did not impact disproportionally on White Women or Black Men. As regards EU law, some socio-legal scholars of today doubt that intersectionality has any value as a practically relevant concept. This article discusses the question whether and how intersectionality can and should be used in applying EU non-discrimination law through a critical analysis of three ECJ rulings delivered between 24 November 2016 and 14 March 2017. The Parris case concerning the pension claims of two white homosexual Men can be qualified as the Court's "DeGraffenreid moment" because it refused to recognise discrimination in a case where the intersection of being over 63 and homosexual was the basis of excluding the Men from a survivor's pension. The Court refused to recognise combined discrimination and found that neither age nor sexual orientation in isolation were the reason of that exclusion. The more recent Achbita and Bougnaoui cases seem to

show abstract

Section: Intersectionality Before the Court Of Justice Of The Europeamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On uses, mis-uses and non-uses of intersectionality before the Court of Justice (EU)

Schiek

2018

International Journal of Discrimination and the Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the five discrimination cases concerning the wearing of the Islamic scarf which have come before the CJEU, only questions of religious discrimination have been considered ( Samira Achbita and Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding v G4S Secure Solutions NV C-157/15 ; Asma Bougnaoui Association de defense des droits de l’homme (ADDH) v Micropole Univers SA C188-15 ; IX v Wabe eV and MH Muller Handels GmbH v MJ C-804/18 and C-341/19/Judgment, LF v SCRL Case C-344/20). (For a helpful discussion of Achbita and Bougnaoui , see Adams and Adentire, 2018; Hambler, 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Muslim women in the workplace and the Equality Act 2010: Opportunities for an intersectional analysis

Cannon

2023

International Journal of Discrimination and the Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The interplay of religion and gender is a relevant factor in the labour market disadvantage experienced by Muslim women. Despite widespread recognition of the importance of addressing disadvantage through an intersectional lens, the domestic equality law framework in Britain continues to adopt fixed and discrete classifications of status inequality, undermining protection for Muslim women in the workplace. This paper uses doctrinal and socio-legal method to expose the disregard in the application of British equality law in its international human rights context to the interaction of religion with gender and to present opportunities for development through case law of an intersectional analysis of disadvantage. After highlighting the labour market disadvantage experienced by Muslim women and making the case for an intersectional response, the paper will assess the application of the British equality law framework in relevant cases and will highlight its contribution to the emergence of a ‘conflict’ narrative. This paper will argue that there is, however, scope in human rights, proportionality and harm analyses to highlight experiences of discrimination at the vector of religion and gender. It will conclude that litigants who avail of these opportunities can contribute to development of law and policy which better reflects lived experience.

show abstract

“…See (Korteweg and Yurdakul 2014). See, among others (Weiler 2017;Collins 2018;Hambler 2018;Hennette-Vauchez 2017;Marin Ais 2018;Howard 2017). 22 The protection of the employer's freedom of belief (either positive or negative) constitutes, of course, an issue in itself, and would deserve to be further explored.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Islam under the Rule of Law in Europe: How Consistent Is the Human Rights Test?

Foblets

2021

Religions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This contribution draws attention to human rights as an instrument of justice to deal with requests that are either made directly or may prove indirectly to be relevant to Muslims who claim the protection of freedom of religion and faith in contemporary European societies. The analysis is distributed over two distinct but complementary illustrations of such claims. The position defended here is that the key to a successful multicultural society lies in enabling adherents of all religions and beliefs, and thus also Muslims, to participate to the same extent, fully and actively, in social life, both as citizens and as private individuals. The challenge lies in finding the balance between looking after the interests of the majority society and meeting the needs and wishes of minority groups and communities, including those communities that are perceived to be ‘new’.

show abstract

Neutrality and Workplace Restrictions on Headscarves and Religious Dress: Lessons from Achbita and Bougnaoui

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

On uses, mis-uses and non-uses of intersectionality before the Court of Justice (EU)

On uses, mis-uses and non-uses of intersectionality before the Court of Justice (EU)

Muslim women in the workplace and the Equality Act 2010: Opportunities for an intersectional analysis

Islam under the Rule of Law in Europe: How Consistent Is the Human Rights Test?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About