We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
Mme Asma X and another v Micropole universNo 2484: Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation) France, Chambre sociale (Social Chamber): Frouin (President), Huglo (Speaker): 22 November 2017.
- Abstract
Human rights – Freedom of religion or belief – Manifestation of religion by wearing religious garment – Interference with – Claimant design engineer hired by respondent company on indefinite employment contract – Claimant wearing Islamic headscarf including when sent on assignment to customer's site – Respondent's customer asking not to have services provided by worker wearing Islamic headscarf in the future – Claimant dismissed after refusing to remove Islamic headscarf when sent on assignment – Claimant challenging dismissal before labour courts – Arguing that dismissal discriminatory measure on grounds of her religious beliefs – Paris Court of Appeal finding dismissal to be based on a real and serious cause – Finding that since a company must take into account diversity of its clients and their beliefs, it is natural for it to impose on employees coming into contact with clients a duty of discretion that respects all beliefs – Finding that restriction on manifestation of religious belief proportionate to the pursued aim as limited to client contact – Concluding that dismissal not based on discrimination on grounds of religious beliefs since claimant able to continue expressing those beliefs within the company – Also that dismissal justified by legitimate restriction based on company interests while claimant's freedom to manifest religious beliefs went beyond company perimeter and infringed on sensitivities of company's clients and therefore on rights of others – Court of Cassation referring question to Court of Justice of European Union – Court of Cassation asking whether customer's request that respondent deny claimant right to wear headscarf genuine occupational requirement by reason of nature of particular occupational activities concerned or the context in which they were carried out – Court of Justice finding that it fell to national jurisdiction to check whether if, taking account of inherent business constraints and without the company having to bear additional costs, it had been possible for employer faced with refusal by employee to remove Islamic headscarf to offer her a position not requiring face-to-face contact with clients, rather than to dismiss her – Labour Code, arts L 1121-1, L 1321-3, L 1321-5, L 1132-1 and L 1133-1 – Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000, arts 2(2) and 4(1) – European Convention on Human Rights, art 9
- Subjects
FREEDOM of religion lawsuits; RELIGIOUS discrimination; HUMAN rights violations
- Publication
Oxford Journal of Law & Religion, 2018, Vol 7, Issue 2, p356
- ISSN
2047-0770
- Publication type
Article
- DOI
10.1093/ojlr/rwy016