Sweden / Labour Court/ A-46-2017

Country

Sweden

Title

Sweden / Labour Court/ A-46-2017

View full Case

Year

2018

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Wednesday, August 15, 2018

Incident(s) concerned/related

Discrimination

Related Bias motivation

Religion

Groups affected

Muslims

Court/Body type

National Court

Court/Body

Labour Court (Arbetsdomstolen)

Key facts of the case

The court found it unlawful to end a recruiting process with a woman because the fact that she did not want to shake hands with a male manager. The proportional penalty was to economically compensate the plaintiff for the discrimination. The plaintiff, F.A represented, by the Equality Ombudsman, applied for an opening as interpreter. During an recruiting interview, F.A did not shake hands with a male representative of the company, with referral to her religious beliefs. As a result, the interpretation company immediately aborted the recruitment process. The company later claimed they had a policy that says all employees must shake hands with everyone. The case concerning whether F.A had been exposed to indirect discrimination was processed by the Labour Court.

Main reasoning/argumentation

The plaintiff (F.A) claimed that she was discriminated against when a job interview was terminated as a result of her not shaking hands with a male manager with reference to her religious beliefs. The interpretation company later claimed that they had a policy, which stipulates that it is not allowed for employees to refuse to shake hands with persons of the opposite sex. The Court argued that both the aborted interview and the company's policy constituted an indirect discrimination of F.A and the entire minority of Muslims who do not shake hands with persons of the opposite sex. The company's actions and policy effectively exclude this group from possible job openings since their religious interpretation of Islam makes it impossible for them to follow the company policy. Consequently, the Court ruled that F.A was exposed to indirect discrimination.

Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?

Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case

The Labour Court concluded that F:A’s refusal to shake hands with persons of the opposite sex is her right as of article 9 in the European Convention. According to the Labour Court, “certain religions” as mentioned in the Discrimination Act, must be considered to include at least such religious manifestations which are protected by article 9 in the European Convention. Consequently, the Labour Court's position on what kind of religious expressions that can be considered protected by Swedish law is different here than in the case above - processed only a couple of months later.

Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case

The Court found the interpretation company guilty of indirect discrimination. The company had to pay the legal costs of the Equality Ombudsman (Diskrimineringsombudsmannen) who pleaded F.A's case. Furthermore, the company had to pay F.A an adequate compensation for the discrimination.

Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details

"Sammantaget finner Arbetsdomstolen att Semantix policy inte är lämplig och nödvändig för att säkerställa att arbetssökande lever upp till det krav på jämställt agerande i arbetslivet som bolaget uppställer, eller till följd av sin syn på relationen mellan män och kvinnor orsakar hinder eller svårigheter i arbetet eller för verksamheten. Domstolen beaktar även att en sådan policy som Semantix upprätthåller är ägnad att utestänga personer som gör samma tolkning av islam som F.A., från delar av arbetsmarknaden. I målet har åberopats ett utlåtande av professorn C.W. om förhållandet mellan god tolksed, tolkars neutralitetsprincip och religiösa symboler och uttryck. Hennes slutsats är att en tolk som av religiösa skäl hälsar genom att lägga handen på hjärtat i stället för att handhälsa inte bryter mot neutralitetsprincipen enligt god tolksed. Inte heller utredningen i övrigt ger stöd för att så skulle vara fallet. Sammanfattningsvis finner Arbetsdomstolen att Semantix policy inte är lämplig och nödvändig för att uppnå sina syften och att bolaget, genom att avbryta rekryteringsförfarandet, har utsatt F.A. för indirekt diskriminering. "

"All in all, the Labour Court finds that Semanix’s policy is neither appropriate and necessary to ensure that job applicants live up to the requirement for equality-based behaviour at the workplace, set by the company nor to ensure that the relationship between men and women does not cause obstacles or difficulties at work or for the company. The Court also takes into account that such a policy as Semantix’ is aimed to exclude persons, who interprets Islam in the same manner as F.A., from the labour market. A statement made by professor C.W. was made in the case concerning the relationship between good interpretive practices, the principle of interpreter neutrality and religious symbols and expressions. Her conclusion was that interpreters who, for religious reasons, greet others by placing their hand on their heart instead of shaking hands do not violate the principle of neutrality according to the code of good interpretation. Nor does the investigation otherwise provide support for this position. In summary, the Labour Court finds that Semantix’s policy is neither appropriate nor necessary in order to achieve its stated objectives and that, by interrupting the recruitment procedure, the company has exposed F.A. to indirect discrimination."

DISCLAIMERThe information presented here is collected under contract by the FRA's research network FRANET. The information and views contained do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA.