IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlawss/v2y2013i3p314-336d28806.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Separate and Unequal : Judicial Culture, Employment Qualifications and Muslim Headscarf Debates

Author

Listed:
  • Joyce Marie Mushaben

    (Political Science Department, University of Missouri-St. Louis, 347 SSB, St. Louis, MO 63121, USA)

Abstract

Few European lawmakers have analyzed the implications of Muslim headscarf bans for equal employment opportunity. EU anti-discrimination directives suggest that contradictory member-state approaches will eventually invoke a judicial Community response at national expense. Drawing on the bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) standard, this study compares the “judicial cultures” of the U.S. Supreme Court, the German Constitutional Court, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the European Court of Justice (ECJ). It argues that while the ECJ initially invoked Roman law precepts shared by a majority of its member-states through the 1980s, it has come to embrace Anglo-American norms stressing individual freedoms over state interests. Given their strong support for equal treatment and social inclusion, EU justices will be more likely than member-state or ECHR judges to overturn existing bans on hejab at the workplace, once such a case makes its way onto the ECJ docket.

Suggested Citation

  • Joyce Marie Mushaben, 2013. "Separate and Unequal : Judicial Culture, Employment Qualifications and Muslim Headscarf Debates," Laws, MDPI, vol. 2(3), pages 1-23, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:2:y:2013:i:3:p:314-336:d:28806
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/2/3/314/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/2/3/314/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:2:y:2013:i:3:p:314-336:d:28806. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.