Skip to main content

religious discrimination

BVerwG 6 C 25.12 Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court)

The Court rejected the appeal and upheld the decision of the lower court that a female Muslim high school student was not exempt from compulsory swimming lessons on the grounds of her religion. In the circumstances, there was not sufficient reason to undermine compulsory school attendance of children. The girl's parents had applied to the school for an exemption from swimming lessons on the grounds that Islamic dress custom did not allow their daughter to participate in co-educational swimming lessons.

Case No. A 46/17 – the Swedish Equality Ombudsman v. Almega Tjänsteföretagen and Semantix Tolkjouren AB

A Muslim woman refused to shake a male interviewer’s hand for religious reasons during a job interview. She placed her hand over her heart and explained her reasons. The recruitment process was then canceled, as the company had a policy which required employees to shake hands with both men and women. The Swedish Equality Ombudsman claimed that the cancellation was an indirect discrimination of Muslims who refuse to shake hand with a person of an opposite sex.

Case No. B 10/16 – E.G. in Tenhult v. the Region of Jönköping County

A to-be midwife, E.G., was denied jobs for which she had applied at three different obstetrics and gynecology departments. When applying, E.G. said that she could not participate in performing abortions due to her religious beliefs. The court considered whether the region had discriminated against E.G. according to Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Swedish Discrimination Act and whether the region had violated E.G’s rights under Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 10 (freedom of expression) of the ECHR.

Case No. T 3905-15 – the Swedish Equality Ombudsman v. the Kingdom of Sweden through Karolinska Institutet

A Swedish dental student was during her dental clinic required to work with bare under-arms. Due to the student’s religious convictions, she asked for permission to wear disposable underarm protection, but her request was denied. The student filed a complaint with the Swedish Equality Ombudsman, who decided to bring an anti-discrimination case to civil court against the education provider Karolinska Institutet.

D.T. v. Canada

D.T., a Christian born in Nigeria, married a Muslim.  Her parents were against the marriage, and when she was pregnant, they threatened to kill the baby.  After her husband died, she was forced to drink the water used to bathe his corpse and to sleep in the room with the corpse for three days.  With help, she escaped and traveled to Canada where she gave birth to her son.  Her son suffers from conditions, including a heart murmur, malformation of his meniscus and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).  D.T.

Ekhamanzi Springs Ltd. v. Mnomiya

The respondent was employed by the appellant to bottle Aquelle spring water. The appellant’s plant was located on property belonging to a religious mission, and to gain access to the workplace, the appellant’s employees had to cross the mission’s property. The mission’s security guards were instructed to bar entry to any persons who did not comply with its code of conduct; one provision, for example, prohibited “amorous relationships between any two persons outside of marriage”. The respondent and a colleague were denied access because they became pregnant outside of marriage.

R.A. v. N.C.

The complainant was a Muslim woman who wore a hijab covering her hair.  While the complainant and the respondent were in a residential elevator, the defendant made disrespectful remarks to the complainant about the complainant’s presumed religion.The two did not know each other – the complainant’s hijab was the only way for the defendant to identify her religion.  The complainant sought an apology.  Video evidence was submitted at trial from CCTV.  Importantly, there was an additional individual in the lift.  As a result of this witness, the tribunal was able t

RRT Case No. 1101038

The applicant appealed a decision denying her a protection visa. The applicant demonstrated evidence that if she returned to Uganda, she would be forced to undergo FGM.  The applicant was a member of the Sabiny tribe, meaning her father’s family had the right under Ugandan law to take her away from her mother and compel her to obey traditional practices, including FGM. She further testified that if she returned to Uganda there would be a risk of abuse as she was a Christian, which was not accepted in her family village.

Tillsyn avseende könsseparerade öppettider i sim- och idrottshallar Stockholm och Malmö (Case No. GRA 2016/8 and Case No. GRA 2016/9 – Decision on gender separation in swimming and sports halls - Stockholm and Malmö)

The Swedish Equality Ombudsman ruled that separate opening hours in public swimming pools for women and men can constitute discrimination, but that separate opening hours can be legal if the discrimination is a result of achieving a permissible and legal purpose. As such, it is permissible for a public swimming pool to have female-only hours in the event that the group of women using the swimming pool do not bathe with men due to their religious beliefs, and would not be able to learn how to swim otherwise.

Subscribe to religious discrimination