To what extent does the prohibition of discrimination based on religion or belief under EU law, and in particular under Directive 2000/78, (2) render unlawful the dismissal of an employee who is a practising Muslim on the ground that she refuses to comply with an instruction from her employer (a private-sector undertaking) that she is not to wear a veil or headscarf when in contact with the customers of the business?

That question was put the CJEU in the second case in a month relating to the ban on religious symbols, particularly Muslim-related head wear, in the workplace. Ms Asma Bougnaoui was employed as a design engineer by Micropole SA. Prior to working for that company as an employee, she had completed a period of end-of-studies training there. Her contract of employment with Micropole started on 15 July 2008 and she was dismissed in June 2009 after wearing a headscarf on the premises of a customer and refusing to not wear a headscarf in future.

The dismissal letter stated that, "We said to you that we entirely respect the principle of freedom of opinion and the religious beliefs of everyone, but that, since you would be in contact internally or externally with the company’s clients, you would not be able to wear the veil in all circumstances."

AG Sharpston emphasised that derogations in respect of occupational requirements must be applied sparingly and in exceptional circumstances, "The Court has held that Article 4(1) [on Occupational requirements] must be interpreted strictly. Indeed, given the statement in recital 23 of the directive that the derogation should apply only ‘in very limited circumstances’, it is hard in the extreme to see that the position could be otherwise. It follows that Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be applied in a way that is specific. It cannot be used to justify a blanket exception for all the activities that a given employee may potentially engage in...   The narrowness of the derogation is reflected in the wording of Article 4(1). Not only must the occupational requirement be ‘genuine’, it must also be ‘determining’. That means...  that the derogation must be limited to matters which are absolutely necessary in order to undertake the professional activity in question."

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=181584&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=616916

NOTE: Compare this case to that of Achbita and anor v G4S Secure Solutions NV [2016] CJEU Case C 157/15 (AG's Opinion), reported by Legal-Island on 1/6/16, where AG Kokott found a blanket ban on wearing religious symbols in the workplace was proportionate when applied to a receptionist who wore a headscarf. The CJEU should give judgment in both cases later this year.