Austria / Vienna Regional Court for Civil Matters (Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien), 34 R 19/23f

Country

Austria

Title

Austria / Vienna Regional Court for Civil Matters (Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien), 34 R 19/23f

View full case

Year

2023

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Tuesday, February 21, 2023

Incident(s) concerned/related

Discrimination

Related Bias motivation

Religion

Groups affected

Muslims

Court/Body type

National Court

Court/Body

Vienna Regional Court for Civil Matters, Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien

Key facts of the case

Mrs F applied to a private provider for a training place on a course for group childcare workers. The woman was told that she would increase her chances of being accepted if she tied her headscarf back. Ms F does not want to jeopardise her admission to the training course and therefore ties her hijab at the back of her neck. At the interview she is asked to ‘take off her headscarf completely’. The interview is very unpleasant for the candidate and centres almost exclusively on her headscarf and she is asked intrusive questions. The interview is then abruptly ended. Just one hour after the interview, Ms F receives a rejection. It is not explained why she did not get the training place.

Main reasoning/argumentation

In the opinion of the court of first instance, the plaintiff has credibly demonstrated that she was not admitted to training because of her headscarf. [...] Rather, the protection against discrimination under the Equal Treatment Act also includes discrimination in access to training contracts.

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 prohibition of discrimination also applies to access to training programmes. This judgement therefore also indirectly guarantees more legal certainty for career advancement. The judgement also makes it clear that insistent and repetitive questions about the Muslim headscarf are an indication of discrimination and are not permissible. The repeated questions in particular show that the applicant's motivation and qualifications were not decisive for the assessment of her application. The external appearance of the candidate and the discriminatory attributions associated with it were much more superficial. This discrimination obviously led to Mrs F not being offered a training place.

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

The Vienna Regional Court for Civil Matters, as the court of appeal, confirmed the judgement of the district court, according to which the plaintiff is entitled to EUR 2,000 in non-material damages.

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

"Die Klägerin hat nach Ansicht des Erstgericht glaubhaft gemacht,dass sie wegen ihres Kopftuchs nicht zur Ausbildung zugelassen worden sei. [...] Der Diskriminierungsschutz des Gleichbehandlungsgesetzes umfasst vielmehr auch eine Diskriminierung beim Zugang zu Ausbildungsverhältnissen." "In the opinion of the court of first instance, the plaintiff has credibly demonstrated that she was not admitted to training because of her headscarf. [...] Rather, the protection against discrimination under the Equal Treatment Act also includes discrimination in access to training contracts."

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.