Court upholds ruling that Stib workers can wear headscarves

Brussels' Labour Court has dismissed a legal claim brought by the Centre d'action Laïque regarding the wearing of religious symbols by staff of the city's public transport operator Stib, upholding a previous ruling that ordered Stib to amend its neutrality policy to be more inclusive.

The dismissal means that, barring a further appeal, the case is now closed.

The case first began when a Muslim woman was not hired by Stib back in 2015 because she said she intended to wear a headscarf at all times, and public employees were not allowed to wear any religious symbols while on the job.

That policy of neutrality applied to all signs of political, philosophical or religious conviction.

Following unsuccessful attempts at conciliation, the Belgian Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism (Unia) brought an injunction in April 2019 before the Brussels Labour Court, aiming to have the gender dimension of the case recognised, as well, pointing out that Muslim men were permitted to have beards.

In May 2021, the court ruled that the complainant had indeed been the victim of double discrimination: direct on the basis of her religion, as the Stib had been unable to prove that the refusal to hire her was not discriminatory, and indirect on the basis of gender.

The court ordered the Stib to put an end to its policy of exclusive neutrality and Stib declined to appeal.

The Brussels government then argued over whether or not to appeal against the ruling itself, with Ecolo and the PS in favour of leaving things as they were, and DéFI in favour of allowing Stib to defend its point of view and its working regulations on appeal.

In the end, it was the PS and Ecolo's point of view that prevailed: no appeal was lodged and Stib was ordered to amend its working regulations to make them more inclusive.

Unhappy with that course of action, defenders of secularism such as the Centre d'action Laïque, the Observatoire des fondamentalismes and two private individuals launched their own third party appeal.

This appeal is the one the Labour Court has dismissed, effectively closing the case.