How can we help?


Dress codes, direct religious discrimination and genuine occupational requirements

Banning a Muslim employee from wearing her headscarf when in contact with clients was direct religious discrimination according to the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

In the French case of Bougnaoui v Micropole SA, the employee was a design engineer and practising Muslim and wore a headscarf which covered her head (but not her face), including when meeting clients of the business. Following a complaint by a client who had a ‘religious neutrality’ policy that they felt “embarrassed” by her headscarf and who requested that she not wear it in future, the employer asked the employee not to wear it to client meetings. The employee refused to comply with this instruction and was dismissed.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) was asked to give a preliminary ruling on whether the employee’s dismissal amounted to direct religious discrimination.

The case is a reminder of Achbita and another v G4S Secure Solutions NV, on which we reported in June, where Advocate General Kokott delivered a surprising opinion that prohibiting employees from wearing any visible signs of political, philosophical or religious beliefs, as long as the prohibition was consistent among differing religious groups, would not amount to direct religious discrimination and would at most amount to indirect discrimination, which may be objectively justified as an occupational requirement, subject to a proportionality assessment.

However, the sharply contracting opinion of Advocate General Sharpston in Bougnaoui is that genuine and determining occupational requirements which would prevent the wearing of a visible sign of religious belief apply only to such matters as, for example, insisting that a male Sikh employee wear protective headgear where it was a health and safety requirement. The Advocate General’s opinion is that there was no genuine or determining occupational requirement in Ms Bougnaoui’s case and that the prohibition on direct discrimination extends to manifestations of religion or belief, such as Ms Bougnaoui wearing a headscarf.  The Advocate General’s conclusion is that it was clear that the employee had been a victim of direct discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief.

Monica Atwal

Managing Partner

View profile

+44 118 960 4605

Chambers and Partners

The Clarkslegal team are commercial and good to work with. They get what our business needs and tell me what I need to hear.

The Advocate Generals’ respective opinions in  Bougnaoui and Achbita are not legally binding until the CJEU gives its final Judgment in each case later this year. It is hoped that the CJEU Judgments will decide which of the two differing approaches is correct. For now, given the apparent contradiction in the opinions in the two cases, employers should continue to treat policies banning employees wearing any visible signs of political, philosophical or religious belief with extreme caution  and seek legal advice if they are intending to implement such a ban.

For futher information or support with religious discrimination claims, please contact our employment law team on 

About this article


This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

Monica Atwal

Managing Partner

View profile

+44 118 960 4605

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

  • 19 July 2024
  • Immigration

UK Immigration Rules for Business Visitors: Flexibility and Controversies

The UK’s immigration rules have changed significantly in the past five years and have introduced greater flexibility for non-EEA nationals who wish to visit the UK as business visitors.

  • 17 July 2024
  • Commercial Real Estate

The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024: what does it mean for my leasehold property? 

The leasehold system in the UK has been subject to some unfavourable press for some time now.

  • 15 July 2024
  • Privacy and Data Protection

The duty to protect third parties: is your DSAR response compliant?

Responding to a data subject access request (DSAR) may feel like a daunting process. It requires a solid understanding of the data subject’s rights, and of the meaning of personal data.

  • 10 July 2024
  • Employment

Redundancy : Back to Basics FAQs

Redundancy can be a scary and overwhelming time both for employees being made redundant, and for those that have to make the decision. It is important for both parties to know their rights and obligations in this time.

  • 09 July 2024
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

Buyer Beware: Practical Guidance for Breach of Warranty in an SPA

Are you buying a business? Whether you are buying shares in a company or purchasing its assets… the general Latin common law principle “caveat emptor” applies.

  • 08 July 2024
  • Corporate and M&A

Navigating corporate transparency: ECCTA reforms series

This is the second article in a series exploring the changes brought by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA).