About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

2 Int'l Lab. Rts. Case L. 1 (2016)

handle is hein.journals/intlrcl2 and id is 1 raw text is: INTERNATIONAL LABOR RIGHTS CASE LAW INTERNATIONAL BRILL 2 (2016) 1-2 FLA W NIJHOFF brill.com/ilarc Introduction from the Editor-in-Chief Discrimination at the workplace entails unfair treatment of certain employees on the basis of their sex, religion, race, or other characteristics. This issue of the International Labor Rights Case Law (ILaRC)-the first in our second vol- ume-sheds light, with a specific reference to the freedom of religion, on three recent and interlinked high-profile cases involving discrimination at the workplace. The first case, Tirkey v Chandhok & Anor, which was decided by the Employ- ment Tribunal of the United Kingdom, addresses caste discrimination. The claimant argued that she had consistently been subjected to slavery-like working conditions by her employers on the basis of her low caste status. The Employment Tribunal found numerous breaches of employment law, including unlawful harassment on the grounds of race and religion. In her commentary, Dr Annapurna Waughray of Manchester Metropolitan University discusses the implications of the judgment both for future lawsuits and the development of UK antidiscrimination legislation, which currently does not explicitly regulate caste discrimination. The second case concerns a claim against the American clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch before the United States Supreme Court. The claimant, a Muslim-American woman, Ms Elauf, had been refused a job in 2008 because she wore a headscarf during her interview, which conflicted with the compa- ny's dress code. Civil rights law in the United States requires that employers accommodate workers' religious beliefs in the workplace. In its judgment, the Court rejected an argument by the defendant that it was not aware that Ms Elauf needed such accommodation. According to the Court, that the headscarf was the motivating factor in the defendant's decision not to hire Ms Elauf is a violation of workplace discrimination law. Michael Sheehan of DLA Piper's U.S. office examines this decision in detail and reflects on the consequences of the decision for antidiscrimination claims in the United States. The third case focuses on ajudgment by the German Federal Constitutional Court on the legality of state neutrality legislation that prohibits teachers in schools from wearing religious headscarves. The Court considered the general ban to be an unconstitutional violation of freedom of religion. The Court fur- ther ruled that, in the future, a prohibition on wearing religious apparel in state schools can be justified only with proof that it constitutes a sufficiently specific © KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2016 DOI 10.1163/24056901-00201001

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most