Search

How can we help?

Icon

It’s all in the consistency…

In the first case brought before the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) under the Equal Treatment Directive (on which the Equality Act 2010 is based), Advocate General Kokott’s opinion (effectively a draft judgment) has made a somewhat surprising finding that where an employee is prohibited from wearing any visible signs of political, philosophical or religious belief, so long as the prohibition is consistent among differing religious groups, this would not amount to direct religious discrimination.

In Achbita and another v G4S Secure Solutions NV, a Muslim employee was dismissed after informing her employer of her intention to wear her headscarf in the workplace, contrary to the company’s dress-code policy.  The Claimant took her case to the ECJ to clarify whether a company ban on wearing religious symbols at work constituted discrimination. A-G Kokott’s opinion (which is not binding on the ECJ or domestic courts), was that the ban applied “to all visible religious symbols without distinction” and as such could affect individuals of other religions and was not discriminatory ‘between religions’.  Further, she stated that if the employer’s aim to achieve a neutral image in respect of religion and ideology was being legitimately met by such a ban, it could be considered as a genuine and legitimate occupational requirement, and therefore could be justified.

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 A-G’s opinion should be approached with caution until the final judgment is released.  We are also awaiting the ECJ’s judgment in a similar case, Bougnaoui v Micropole Univers C-188/15, which, again, will determine if the need to adopt a ‘neutral appearance’ can be an occupational requirement. Once these two judgments have been released, it will be interesting to see the approach the UK Tribunals take.  For now, employers should continue to treat such policies with extreme caution and seek legal advice if they are intending to implement such a ban.

Employmentbuddy.com 

Disclaimer

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.

Author profile

Monica Atwal

Managing Partner

View profile

+44 118 960 4605

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

art
  • 20 March 2026
  • Corporate and M&A

Drag-Along & Tag-Along Rights: Why Every Company Needs Them

When starting a company, very few founders are aware of the potential issues around shares, share ownership and the implications of that when selling their company.

art
  • 19 March 2026
  • Privacy and Data Protection

WhatsApp in the Workplace

This article explores the potential risks of using WhatsApp for workplace communications, the implications for GDPR compliance and under UK legislation, and provides practical tips for employers to mitigate these risks.

art
  • 16 March 2026
  • Employment

Trade Union Law Changes from April 2026

April brings the next tranche of reforms under the Employment Rights Act 2025 including changes to the statutory recognition scheme making it easier for trade unions to be recognised in the workplace.

Pub
  • 16 March 2026
  • Corporate and M&A

Shareholder Disputes: Managing Shareholder Buyouts and Exits – Episode 3

Join Stuart Mullins and Nicky Goringe Larkin for the third and final episode of our Shareholder Disputes series, where we move from prevention to resolution—exploring what happens when a founder’s exit becomes unavoidable.

art
  • 13 March 2026
  • Employment

When Immigration compliance becomes discrimination: The UK’s uncomfortable workplace balance

UK employers today operate under powerful, and some may say conflicting, legal pressures. On one hand, they must prevent illegal working under UK immigration laws.

art
  • 09 March 2026
  • Commercial Real Estate

Commercial Rent Deposits – A brief overview

A rent deposit is money provided by a tenant to its landlord as security for payment of the rent and performance of the tenant’s covenants contained in the lease.