![\"\"](\"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/AdobeStock_654383451.jpeg\")
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Find out here how the AGG protects those affected and which legal standards apply in cases of religiously motivated discrimination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What awaits you:<\/h2>\n\n- Neutrality requirement as discrimination: LAG Berlin-Brandenburg awards compensation\n<\/a><\/li>\n
- Why the neutrality requirement in the employment contract was inadmissible\n<\/a><\/li>\n
- Court confirms discrimination: headscarf ban violates fundamental rights\n<\/a><\/li>\n
- LAG Berlin-Brandenburg: Blanket headscarf ban is disproportionate\n<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Neutrality requirement as discrimination: LAG Berlin-Brandenburg awards compensation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
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\u2014without 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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 \u2013 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Discrimination in the workplace is often difficult to prove \u2013 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Why the neutrality requirement in the employment contract was inadmissible<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Court confirms discrimination: headscarf ban violates fundamental rights<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
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 \u2013 otherwise, they violate the fundamental right to freedom of belief and religion (Article 4, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Basic Law).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) had already made it clear that blanket headscarf bans are inadmissible \u2013 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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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 \u2013 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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The LAG\u2019s ruling is in line with established case law that sets clear limits for neutrality requirements in employment relationships.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
LAG Berlin-Brandenburg: Blanket headscarf ban is disproportionate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Do you suspect discrimination at work? Our employment law services will help you assert your rights \u2013 with sound assessments, legally sound arguments, and the goal of fair working conditions. Get a free, no-obligation consultation now!
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A Muslim woman is receiving compensation because the neutrality requirement contained in her employment contract is discriminatory \u2013 provided that wearing a headscarf is not relevant to the job. Learn more now!<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":9653,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[21,20,22],"class_list":["post-9652","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-allgemein","tag-agg","tag-diskriminierung","tag-neutralitaetsvorgabe"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
LAG spricht Muslimin AGG-Entsch\u00e4digung zu \u2013 Diskriminierung durch Neutralit\u00e4tsvorgabe | Smart-Arbeitsrecht<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In Schleswig-Holstein bleibt die Position der Gleichstellungsbeauftragten im \u00f6ffentlichen Dienst ausschlie\u00dflich Frauen vorbehalten.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/en\/lag-spricht-muslimin-agg-entschaedigung-zu-diskriminierung-durch-neutralitaetsvorgabe\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"LAG spricht Muslimin AGG-Entsch\u00e4digung zu \u2013 Diskriminierung durch Neutralit\u00e4tsvorgabe | Smart-Arbeitsrecht\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In Schleswig-Holstein bleibt die Position der Gleichstellungsbeauftragten im \u00f6ffentlichen Dienst ausschlie\u00dflich Frauen vorbehalten.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/en\/lag-spricht-muslimin-agg-entschaedigung-zu-diskriminierung-durch-neutralitaetsvorgabe\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Smart-Arbeitsrecht\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-08-21T07:54:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-09-11T08:16:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/AdobeStock_654383451-1024x691.jpeg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1024\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"691\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Raphael Lugowski\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Raphael Lugowski\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/lag-spricht-muslimin-agg-entschaedigung-zu-diskriminierung-durch-neutralitaetsvorgabe\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/lag-spricht-muslimin-agg-entschaedigung-zu-diskriminierung-durch-neutralitaetsvorgabe\/\",\"name\":\"LAG spricht Muslimin AGG-Entsch\u00e4digung zu \u2013 Diskriminierung durch Neutralit\u00e4tsvorgabe | Smart-Arbeitsrecht\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/lag-spricht-muslimin-agg-entschaedigung-zu-diskriminierung-durch-neutralitaetsvorgabe\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/lag-spricht-muslimin-agg-entschaedigung-zu-diskriminierung-durch-neutralitaetsvorgabe\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/AdobeStock_654383451.jpeg\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/#\/schema\/person\/aa572512b09294d8a6b4243ad3039813\"},\"description\":\"In Schleswig-Holstein bleibt die Position der Gleichstellungsbeauftragten im \u00f6ffentlichen Dienst ausschlie\u00dflich Frauen vorbehalten.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/lag-spricht-muslimin-agg-entschaedigung-zu-diskriminierung-durch-neutralitaetsvorgabe\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/lag-spricht-muslimin-agg-entschaedigung-zu-diskriminierung-durch-neutralitaetsvorgabe\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/lag-spricht-muslimin-agg-entschaedigung-zu-diskriminierung-durch-neutralitaetsvorgabe\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/AdobeStock_654383451.jpeg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/AdobeStock_654383451.jpeg\",\"width\":6056,\"height\":4084,\"caption\":\"smiling muslim female doctor in brown hijab carrying medical records\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/lag-spricht-muslimin-agg-entschaedigung-zu-diskriminierung-durch-neutralitaetsvorgabe\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Startseite\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"LAG spricht Muslimin AGG-Entsch\u00e4digung zu \u2013 Diskriminierung durch Neutralit\u00e4tsvorgabe\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/\",\"name\":\"Smart-Arbeitsrecht\",\"description\":\"Kanzlei f\u00fcr Arbeitsrecht\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/#\/schema\/person\/aa572512b09294d8a6b4243ad3039813\",\"name\":\"Raphael Lugowski\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/bc641ff1de7bc0326348a21cebbd1ff6a5f98b1c8bb7023dcd498f809d0f2b7e?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/bc641ff1de7bc0326348a21cebbd1ff6a5f98b1c8bb7023dcd498f809d0f2b7e?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Raphael Lugowski\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/en\/author\/raphael-lugowski\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"LAG awards Muslim woman AGG compensation \u2013 discrimination due to neutrality requirement | Smart Labor Law","description":"In Schleswig-Holstein, the position of equal opportunity officer in the public service remains reserved exclusively for women.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/en\/lag-spricht-muslimin-agg-entschaedigung-zu-diskriminierung-durch-neutralitaetsvorgabe\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"LAG spricht Muslimin AGG-Entsch\u00e4digung zu \u2013 Diskriminierung durch Neutralit\u00e4tsvorgabe | Smart-Arbeitsrecht","og_description":"In Schleswig-Holstein bleibt die Position der Gleichstellungsbeauftragten im \u00f6ffentlichen Dienst ausschlie\u00dflich Frauen vorbehalten.","og_url":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/en\/lag-spricht-muslimin-agg-entschaedigung-zu-diskriminierung-durch-neutralitaetsvorgabe\/","og_site_name":"Smart-Arbeitsrecht","article_published_time":"2025-08-21T07:54:08+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-09-11T08:16:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1024,"height":691,"url":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/AdobeStock_654383451-1024x691.jpeg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Raphael Lugowski","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Raphael Lugowski","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/lag-spricht-muslimin-agg-entschaedigung-zu-diskriminierung-durch-neutralitaetsvorgabe\/","url":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/lag-spricht-muslimin-agg-entschaedigung-zu-diskriminierung-durch-neutralitaetsvorgabe\/","name":"LAG awards Muslim woman AGG compensation \u2013 discrimination due to neutrality requirement | Smart Labor Law","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/lag-spricht-muslimin-agg-entschaedigung-zu-diskriminierung-durch-neutralitaetsvorgabe\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/lag-spricht-muslimin-agg-entschaedigung-zu-diskriminierung-durch-neutralitaetsvorgabe\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/AdobeStock_654383451.jpeg","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/#\/schema\/person\/aa572512b09294d8a6b4243ad3039813"},"description":"In Schleswig-Holstein, the position of equal opportunity officer in the public service remains reserved exclusively for women.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/lag-spricht-muslimin-agg-entschaedigung-zu-diskriminierung-durch-neutralitaetsvorgabe\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/lag-spricht-muslimin-agg-entschaedigung-zu-diskriminierung-durch-neutralitaetsvorgabe\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/lag-spricht-muslimin-agg-entschaedigung-zu-diskriminierung-durch-neutralitaetsvorgabe\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/AdobeStock_654383451.jpeg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/AdobeStock_654383451.jpeg","width":6056,"height":4084,"caption":"smiling muslim female doctor in brown hijab carrying medical records"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/lag-spricht-muslimin-agg-entschaedigung-zu-diskriminierung-durch-neutralitaetsvorgabe\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Startseite","item":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"LAG spricht Muslimin AGG-Entsch\u00e4digung zu \u2013 Diskriminierung durch Neutralit\u00e4tsvorgabe"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/#website","url":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/","name":"Smart labor law","description":"Employment law firm","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/#\/schema\/person\/aa572512b09294d8a6b4243ad3039813","name":"Raphael Lugowski","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/bc641ff1de7bc0326348a21cebbd1ff6a5f98b1c8bb7023dcd498f809d0f2b7e?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/bc641ff1de7bc0326348a21cebbd1ff6a5f98b1c8bb7023dcd498f809d0f2b7e?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Raphael Lugowski"},"url":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/en\/author\/raphael-lugowski\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9652","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9652"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9652\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9656,"href":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9652\/revisions\/9656"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9653"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9652"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9652"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/smart-arbeitsrecht.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9652"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Neutrality requirement as discrimination: LAG Berlin-Brandenburg awards compensation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
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\u2014without 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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 \u2013 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Discrimination in the workplace is often difficult to prove \u2013 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Why the neutrality requirement in the employment contract was inadmissible<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Court confirms discrimination: headscarf ban violates fundamental rights<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
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 \u2013 otherwise, they violate the fundamental right to freedom of belief and religion (Article 4, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Basic Law).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) had already made it clear that blanket headscarf bans are inadmissible \u2013 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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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 \u2013 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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The LAG\u2019s ruling is in line with established case law that sets clear limits for neutrality requirements in employment relationships.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
LAG Berlin-Brandenburg: Blanket headscarf ban is disproportionate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Do you suspect discrimination at work? Our employment law services will help you assert your rights \u2013 with sound assessments, legally sound arguments, and the goal of fair working conditions. Get a free, no-obligation consultation now!
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A Muslim woman is receiving compensation because the neutrality requirement contained in her employment contract is discriminatory \u2013 provided that wearing a headscarf is not relevant to the job. Learn more now!<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":9653,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[21,20,22],"class_list":["post-9652","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-allgemein","tag-agg","tag-diskriminierung","tag-neutralitaetsvorgabe"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n