• Germany’s Federal Labor Court recently ruled that when a rejected applicant presents evidence suggesting she was denied employment solely because of her religious headscarf, the burden shifts to the employer to rebut that inference or face liability for damages.
• Employers seeking to enforce a company-wide headscarf ban must demonstrate an objective necessity. Vague “concerns about potential conflict” are insufficient.
• There is no state-mandated “neutrality requirement” applicable to personnel in the aviation security sector.

A Muslim woman applied for a position as an aviation security assistant at the passenger and baggage screening checkpoint at Hamburg Airport. Her application included a photograph showing her wearing a headscarf. She subsequently received a rejection letter. No reasons were provided.

Believing she had been discriminated against because of her Muslim faith, the applicant sought compensatory damages under the German General Equal Treatment Act (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz (AGG)). This statute broadly prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin, sex, religion or belief, disability, age, or sexual orientation.

During the litigation that followed, the company, which had been contracted by the Federal Police to handle the hiring process, defended itself by citing an internal policy prohibiting head coverings and a purported “neutrality requirement.” The Labor Court (Arbeitsgericht) and the Regional Labor Court (Landesarbeitsgericht)...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMi5AFBVV95cUxNdDNKSldGcXNDNnBtYXlzYjd0...