Abelleria, Kenny Jessa Vem C.

March 17, 2017

Hist.142 - Contemporary Europe TF/ 1:30-3:00

ARTICLE REVIEW

This article tells about defining discrimination about the issue on

banning the Muslims wearing headscarves. The European Court of Justice
rules that a ban is not discriminatory if it meets certain conditions. The
decision issued by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), “An internal rule…
which prohibits the visible wearing of any political, philosophical or religious
sign does not constitute direct discrimination,” the court said. Employers are
entitled to forbid their Muslim staff from wearing headscarves as long as it is
part of a consistent practice of banning the display of religious or ideological
symbols, and not a one-off action aimed at satisfying the demands of a
particular client.

The author presents different cases on how the employer asked the
Muslim employee to remove the headscarves that resulted to be dismissed from
their job when they declined. Like for example into the cases of a Belgian
woman who was fired from her job as a receptionist at a security company after
she started wearing a headscarf, and of a French IT consultant who was told to
remove her scarf after a client complained, and then dismissed when she
declined. In both cases, the ECJ suggested that national courts needed to
investigate further to establish whether the women had been discriminated
against. In the Belgian case, the court recommended working out if there might
have been a simpler solution such as transferring the employee to a role where
she was not in contact with the public. Moreover, regarding the French
consultant, it considered it necessary to establish whether the disciplinary
action was purely a response to the client’s whim (which appeared to be the
case and would be insufficient grounds for a dismissal) or a legitimate
consequence of a broader policy. Taken as a whole, the ECJ decided to up held
the right of employers to enforce ideological neutrality in the workplace as long
as it was done fairly and consistently.

Furthermore, this judgment might look like a careful, Solomonic piece of

jurisprudence designed to take the sting out of a contentious issue by steering a
course down the middle. But so charged is the political atmosphere in Europe these
days that it is likely to have the very opposite effect. This article is significant as it
shows the different views about the issues with example and evidences together with
the action and the points made by the author are valid. Nevertheless, the ECJ's ruling
is a call to apply a single, transparent rule to people of all creeds and cultures. But
religious and cultural symbols seem to be an area where nobody can agree on what
"neutrality" really means.
Defining discrimination
Employers may sometimes
ban staff from wearing
headscarves
By Erasmus
Posted 14 March 2017
EMPLOYERS are entitled to forbid
their Muslim staff from wearing
headscarves as long as it is part of a
consistent practice of banning the
display of religious or ideological
symbols, and not a one-off action
aimed at satisfying the demands of a
particular client.
That was the main thrust of a
decision issued today by the
European Court of Justice (ECJ), a
Luxembourg-based tribunal whose
job it is to interpret and uphold the
laws of the European Union. “An
internal rule…which prohibits the
visible wearing of any political,
philosophical or religious sign does
not constitute direct
discrimination,” the court said.
The ECJ judges were looking into
the cases of a Belgian woman who
was fired from her job as a
receptionist at a security company
after she started wearing a
headscarf, and of a French IT
consultant who was told to remove
her scarf after a client complained,
and then dismissed when she
declined.
In both cases, the ECJ suggested
that national courts needed to
investigate further to establish
whether the women had been
discriminated against. Taken as a
whole, today’s decision upheld the
right of employers to enforce
ideological neutrality in the
workplace as long as it was done
fairly and consistently.
This marks a contrast with the
thinking of America’s Supreme
Court, which in 2015 vindicated a
Muslim woman who had been
turned down for a job by the
clothing chain Abercrombie and
Fitch on the grounds that her
headscarf was out of step with the
look the company was promoting.
Since 1964, American civil-rights
legislation has told employers to
provide “reasonable
accommodation” of their workers’
religious needs, unless it would be
unbearably burdensome to do so.
Today's decision also reflected a
more secularist spirit than did one
by the European Court of Human
Rights in 2013, which upheld the
right of a Christian woman to wear a
discreet cross with her British
Airways uniform.
Today’s judgement might look like a
careful, Solomonic piece of
jurisprudence designed to take the
sting out of a contentious issue by
steering a course down the middle.
But so charged is the political
atmosphere in Europe these days aim." Meanwhile intense Muslim
that it is likely to have the very unhappiness over the ruling was
opposite effect. articulated by the Islamic Human
Rights Commission, a London-based
The decision was instantly deplored
lobby group, where a spokeswoman
by Islamic and some other religious
said: “This gives legal cover to what
groups, as well as some secular
is essentially an ongoing hate
human-rights campaigners
campaign to make Muslims second-
including Amnesty International, for
class citizens in Europe. It will only
legitimising discrimination. No less
increase feelings of marginalisation
speedily, it was welcomed by some
and disenfranchisement in Muslim
of the resurgent forces on Europe’s
communities.”
cultural and political right,
including Germany’s anti-immigrant The ECJ's ruling is a call to apply a
"Alternative for Germany" party. single, transparent rule to people of
all creeds and cultures. But
The ruling does indeed appear to be
religious and cultural symbols seem
good news for Marine Le Pen, the
to be an area where nobody can
French presidential candidate who
agree on what "neutrality" really
would like to see all conspicuous
means.
religious symbols removed from
public spaces. It should also please Erasmus (2017) Defining discrimination Employers
may sometimes ban staff from wearing headscarves
the right-wing standard-bearer in Retrieved 14 March 2017 from
this week’s Dutch elections, Geert http://www.economist.com/blogs/erasmus/201
Wilders, who has listed the 7/03/defining-discrimination?
zid=307&ah=5e80419d1bc9821ebe173f4f0f060a
headscarf as one of the many 07
manifestations of Islam that he
would like to see much less of.
Francois Fillon, the centre-right
(and culturally conservative)
candidate in the French presidential
race, was among the first public
figures to welcome the ruling.

A more liberal-minded and middle-

of-the-road defence of the decision
came from Britain's National
Secular Society, whose campaigns
director Stephen Evans said that for
bosses, "religous and political
neutrality is a perfectly reasonable