The Berlin-Brandenburg Regional Labor Court (LAG) has ruled that a Muslim employee will receive compensation under the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG) because the neutrality requirement enshrined in the employment contract has a discriminatory effect.
The background: The headscarf had no impact on the employee's professional activity. In such cases, a blanket requirement of neutrality represents an impermissible restriction of religious freedom. The ruling underscores that employers may not use neutrality requirements to prohibit religious expression without objective reason.
The decision is part of a series of important rulings on discrimination based on religious clothing and clearly demonstrates how sensitive contract drafting must be in employment law.
Find out here how the AGG protects those affected and which legal standards apply in cases of religiously motivated discrimination.
What awaits you:
Neutrality requirement as discrimination: LAG Berlin-Brandenburg awards compensation
In its judgment of November 12, 2024 (case no. 11 Sa 443/24), the Berlin-Brandenburg State Labor Court (LAG) ruled that presenting an employment contract with a neutrality clause to a Muslim applicant violated the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG). The plaintiff had applied for a position as a student employee at a social welfare organization. Her work was to consist exclusively of research work—without any customer contact. Nevertheless, the employment contract contained a clause prohibiting the wearing of visible religious symbols. The employer justified this with potential internal conflicts.
The court considered this to be unlawful discrimination based on religion. Since the headscarf had no connection with her job duties, the plaintiff was awarded compensation amounting to two months' salary. The Berlin Labor Court had previously dismissed the claim (judgment of April 18, 2023, case number 38 Ca 5915/23). In its ruling, the Higher Labor Court clarified that the neutrality requirement violated Section 7 of the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG) and that the plaintiff's discrimination because of her headscarf was not justified by objective reasons.
In its justification, the court also referred to landmark decisions of the Federal Labor Court (BAG, judgment of August 27, 2020, case no. 8 AZR 62/19) and the European Court of Justice (ECJ, judgment of October 13, 2022, case no. C-344/20). These confirm that both direct and indirect discrimination can occur – particularly when religious characteristics are restricted without any specific reference to the job. The LAG concluded that the neutrality requirement was not necessary for the student worker's activity and therefore constituted impermissible discrimination.
Discrimination in the workplace is often difficult to prove – yet it is prohibited by law. Our attorneys specializing in labor law will provide you with expert support in asserting your rights. We examine discrimination cases under the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG), advise on potential lawsuits, and resolutely enforce compensation claims.
Why the neutrality requirement in the employment contract was inadmissible
The plaintiff's employment contract contained a clause prohibiting the wearing of visible religious symbols. The employer made it unequivocally clear that employment would only be possible if the applicant refrained from wearing her headscarf.
The Berlin-Brandenburg State Labor Court (LAG) ruled this condition inadmissible. The student worker's activity was limited to research and did not require any external neutrality. The court clearly stated: "The proper performance of this activity does not depend on whether the employee wears an Islamic headscarf or not." The neutrality clause thus unreasonably interfered with the plaintiff's religious freedom and violated the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG).
Court confirms discrimination: headscarf ban violates fundamental rights
In its ruling, the Berlin-Brandenburg State Labor Court (LAG) once again referred to established case law on headscarf bans. It made it clear: blanket bans on religious clothing in the workplace are only permissible under strict conditions – otherwise, they violate the fundamental right to freedom of belief and religion (Article 4, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Basic Law).
The Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) had already made it clear that blanket headscarf bans are inadmissible – for example, for teachers (BVerfG, decision of January 27, 2015, case no. 1 BvR 471/10) or kindergarten teachers (BVerfG, decision of October 18, 2016, case no. 1 BvR 354/11).
The Federal Labor Court (BAG) confirmed that neutrality requirements are only lawful if concrete operational disruptions caused by wearing a headscarf can be proven (BAG, judgment of August 27, 2020, case number 8 AZR 62/19).
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) also specified its requirements: A headscarf ban must serve a legitimate aim, be proportionate, and take into account national fundamental rights standards – such as the freedom of religion guaranteed in Germany (ECJ, judgment of 13 October 2022, case no. C-344/20; ECJ, judgment of 15 July 2021, case no. C-804/18 and C-341/19).
The LAG’s ruling is in line with established case law that sets clear limits for neutrality requirements in employment relationships.
LAG Berlin-Brandenburg: Blanket headscarf ban is disproportionate
In the case decided, the Berlin-Brandenburg Regional Labor Court (LAG) made it clear: The blanket ban on headscarves within the framework of a neutrality clause is disproportionate and constitutes discrimination within the meaning of the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG).
Do you suspect discrimination at work? Our employment law services will help you assert your rights – with sound assessments, legally sound arguments, and the goal of fair working conditions. Get a free, no-obligation consultation now!