Senior EU lawyer backs workplace ban on Muslim headscarves | World news | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/m ... eadscarves

Part of me thinks, 'It's for your own good!', but...

they will still not adapt or integrate. they will find ways around it.
its there way and no other, a invisible friend said so ...

well, you don't want to be leaning over a lathe wearing headscarf or shawl or any of that. They ban people from using them wearing ties as well. I dunno about generally, but for me the wellbeing of the person who has to clear up the mess after you get your head ripped off by a piece of machinery trumps your right to religious expression.

I think there's a clear distinction to be made between something on the grounds of health and safety (so loose clothing near lathe or similar clearly isn't appropriate) and a general clothing policy.

In the particular case here however the woman in questions was a receptionist and G4S only produced a written policy to the effect after they fired the woman for breaking a rule that wasn't apparently written down anywhere.
It's not clear from the article whether or not the woman in question had been told not to wear the head scarf and refused, been warned several times or if it came out of the blue. If she was told it was company policy then IMHO she had every right to ask to be shown said policy in writing - at the very least the company position should have been put in a formal letter from the HR department. If she then refused to comply then that's slightly different.

While I don't disagree that an employer has the right to ban the wearing of religious clothing and symbols in the workplace I don't believe singling out a single religion is tenable - it either has to be ANY religious clothing or symbols or none. Having said that, if an employer is going to have such a policy then it's necessary to have it in writing, for any rules and restrictions to be clear, and to do so before any action is taken based on said policy.

I think any reasonable person would be rightly angry at being fired for breaching a clothing 'policy' that wasn't in writing.

I think there is a level of 'discreet vs obvious' here that isn't entirely black & white. For example a crucifix worn as a necklace or a pin badge is relatively unobtrusive, but you'd draw a line at someone coming onto work with something along those lines that was particularly ostentatious. Likewise a headscarf for a receptionist seems OK to me, where as a full niqab would be a different debate, at least outside primarily muslim countries.

Fundamentally your right to religious worship is a private matter and if it impinges upon your job performance then that's an issue for you to resolve, not your employers.


I'd take a small bet there was a policy but it was incredibly vague and subject to interpretation.

Jon

Not according to the article:

Bold emphasis added by me.

To my mind, if they'd consulted and updated the policy first and she'd then refused to comply with the written policy they would have been less open to legal challenge.
I totally agree that what is and isn't acceptable can be a massive grey area which is basically why I think, if you are going to have a policy as an employer you need to nail everything down with as little ambiguity as possible.
When this sort of stuff comes up I try to imagine how an employer would deal with someone coming to work dressed like Lord or Lady Whiteadder