A later stage of the debate

The joined WABE and Müller cases returned workplace restrictions on religious signs to the Court of Justice in July 2021. The Court’s official summary describes an inquiry into the employer’s justification, including whether a genuine need supported the neutrality policy. The cases belong to a developing sequence of decisions, rather than a fresh statement that can be read independently of that sequence.

Their relevance to research on Islamic law and society comes from the institutional treatment of Muslim practice. The court was interpreting employment-equality law. It was not deciding the religious meaning or necessity of a headscarf, and a comparison should avoid attributing such a decision to it.

The explanation for the rule

The judgment examines the conditions for justifying an indirectly discriminatory rule. Among the matters discussed are the asserted need, consistent application and the restriction’s scope. These features help distinguish a policy described as neutral from a policy whose application and justification have actually been examined.

This offers a productive way to compare institutional documents. Start with the written policy, move to the reasons advanced in litigation, and then examine the court’s treatment of those reasons. Each stage can change the apparent breadth of the dispute. An institutional preference and the evidence needed to support it are different parts of the record.

Comparisons across systems

A researcher comparing these cases with a United States accommodation case should identify the source of the obligation before comparing outcomes. Direct and indirect discrimination, accommodation and proportionality do not become interchangeable simply because they are discussed in relation to religious dress.

The 2021 documents are especially useful for teaching that point. They allow readers to ask which interests receive attention, what information the employer must provide and what is left to the national court. A careful comparison can identify a difference in legal architecture without assuming that one judgment expresses an entire jurisdiction’s attitude toward religion.

References

  1. CJEU: WABE and Müller, press release 128/21

    Official summary of the joined workplace-neutrality cases decided on 15 July 2021.

  2. WABE and Müller, C-804/18 and C-341/19: judgment

    Official judgment of the Grand Chamber, 15 July 2021.

Filed under Law & society. Sources and corrections.