IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indlaw/v53y2024i2p305-320..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

OP v Commune d’Ans: Another Step in the Wrong Direction for Headscarf-Wearing Women

Author

Listed:
  • Erica HowardEmerita

Abstract

This article analyses and criticises the latest Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case concerning the wearing of Muslim headscarves at work. OP was refused permission to wear a Muslim headscarf at work because her employer, a public authority, had a policy of exclusive neutrality, prohibiting employees from wearing any form of religious clothing or symbols. The CJEU judgment limits the employment opportunities of Muslim women who want to wear headscarves for religious reasons and allows member states and infra-state bodies a margin of discretion to decide whether to ban religious clothing and symbols for all employees, only for employees who come into contact with service users or not to ban such items at all; and, it ignores any possibility of the presence of gender, race or multiple discrimination. Prohibitions on religious clothing and symbols affect especially Muslim women, who are often from a non-European background and thus could amount to gender discrimination, race discrimination and to discrimination on a combination of religion or belief, gender and racial or ethnic origin.

Suggested Citation

  • Erica HowardEmerita, 2024. "OP v Commune d’Ans: Another Step in the Wrong Direction for Headscarf-Wearing Women," Industrial Law Journal, Industrial Law Society, vol. 53(2), pages 305-320.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:53:y:2024:i:2:p:305-320.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/indlaw/dwae008
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:53:y:2024:i:2:p:305-320.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ilj .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.