The Belgian Court Ruling on Neutral Dress Code in the Workplace, and the Media’s Reaction
Newspapers in Belgium published Islamophobic articles about the Hijab, which neglected to feature the voice of Muslim women, after a Belgian court ruled that a believer’s desire to wear outward signs of his or her belief is not a protected criterion under the discrimination laws.
Screenshot from IUS Laboris website
STIB, Brussels’ public transport organisation, was condemned by the Brussels Labour Court for religious and gender discrimination on May 3rd. The case was brought to court by a Muslim woman, who says she was discriminated against during the hiring process due to her wearing a headscarf. According to a press release by UNIA, the Interfederal Center for Equal Opportunities, “recruitment agencies let her [the complainant] know that STIB applies a policy of neutrality which does not allow any sign of conviction and that it should comply with it by removing its headscarf.” On the case, the court ruled that STIB needs to end its policy of "exclusive neutrality" in its recruitment process. The case was covered by various press in Belgium, and bring to mind another landmark ruling which occured in the country in May.
In the same month, the Belgian employment court delivered their final ruling on a case related to wearing the headscarf in the workplace. The case stems from a female employee, who worked as a receptionist for a company in Belgium, who requested to wear a headscarf in the workplace during work hours.
The employee had previously not worn a headscarf at work but upon request, her employer denied stating a company policy. The specific policy in question is that of a neutral dress code, which, according to Ius Laboris, “prohibited workers from wearing outward signs of their religious, philosophical or political beliefs in the workplace.”
The employee persisted, feeling discriminated against by the policy, and her contract was ultimately terminated. The dismissed employee decided to pursue legal action and claim compensation equivalent to six months’ pay.
After the claim was dismissed by both the Labour Tribunal and the Labour Court of Antwerp, the case made its way to the Labour Court in Ghent, which delivered their final verdict this month. Global HR law first Ius Laboris gives an overview of the ruling below:
“The former employee argued, together with Unia (the Belgian centre for equal opportunities and opposition to racism), that the neutrality policy disadvantaged Muslims as a group more than others, since Islam imposes a greater obligation to wear certain external signs than other religions.
The Labour Court emphasised the Belgian principle of separation of church and state, from which it follows that it is not for the judiciary to compare different religions and to decide which external signs should or should not be considered compulsory within a certain religious or philosophical conviction.
The Court decided that a believer’s desire to wear outward signs of his or her belief is not a protected criterion under the discrimination laws. This means that the policy of neutrality does not constitute an indirect distinction between workers and therefore, logically, that there can be no indirect discrimination.”
Upon the final verdict, the case received renewed media attention especially because Belgian politicians took different views on the matter.
Georges-Louis Bouchez, president of the Reformist Movement party (Mouvement Réformateur, MR) spoke to Le Soir on the issue, stating: “Wearing a headscarf is the same kind of marker as when I go to a counter and I'm greeted by someone wearing a PS [Socialist Party] t-shirt. Then I can always say to myself that the administration has not handled my case in the same way.”
Back in January 2021, Belgian Get The Trolls Out! partner ENORB complained to Le Soir about a separate article, also related to the case of headscarves in the workplace and Bouchez’s remarks on it.
At the time, La Soir carried over Bouchez’s hateful statements without providing further explanation and confrontation about the claims made. You can read the full complaint here.
Screenshot from Le Soir ‘Georges-Louis Bouchez: "The veil in the administration is the madness of the left!".’
For Le Vif, Collectif Laïcité Yallah claims a form of ‘Islamisation’ occurring in Brussels, stating: “[there is] increasing pressure to comply with the ritual of the month of Ramadan, to wear the Islamic veil, to eat halal meals, to a strict separation between Muslims and non-Muslims, between women and men. But who really cares? After the banalization of the Islamic veil in the workplace, what will be the next step?” These claims are made without any sources, and in both pieces, there is a lack of differing voices.
