Religious Attire in the Workplace

Qs & As

‘Accommodating religious expression in the workplace depends on a commitment to inclusion from employers’

 By Lex

Recent public reports indicate that a law firm has taken disciplinary action against two female employees for their alleged refusal to comply with an employer’s instruction not to wear the hijab in the workplace. This incident follows a similar case from a few years ago, where another employer reportedly attempted, though unsuccessfully, to initiate disciplinary action against a female employee for wearing a tikka at work. While the veracity of the current allegations against the first employer is yet to be publicly confirmed, these incidents collectively highlight crucial questions regarding workplace policies and religious attire in Mauritius. In this week’s Qs & As, LEX explores the pertinent issues that this matter raises.

* Are religious garments, symbols, or ornaments such as hijabs worn by Muslim women, tikkas worn by Indian women, or Christian religious symbols/ornaments permissible in the workplace under current workplace policies or regulations in Mauritius?

Although there are no specific regulations that directly address religious attire in the workplace, Section 11 (1) of the Constitution of Mauritius provides a strong legal foundation for the protection of religious freedom. It states:

“Except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of conscience, and for the purposes of this section, that freedom includes freedom of thought and of religion, freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and both in public and in private, to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”.

* In light of the incidents as reported publicly, could a directive from an employer prohibiting the wearing of a hijab or a tikka or any other religious attire by employees constitute indirect or direct discrimination under Mauritian laws?

Section 16 (1) of the constitution affords protection against discrimination on grounds of race, caste, place of origin, political opinions, colour, creed or sex. Creed incorporates religious freedom.

The freedom of religion, while a fundamental right, is not absolute. It can be limited under specific circumstances, provided these limitations are “reasonably justifiable in a democratic state.” The derogations can be made in interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health; or for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedoms of other persons, including the right to observe and practise any religion or belief without the unsolicited intervention of persons professing any other religion or belief.

However, as emphasized by the Human Rights Committee in Geneva, these restrictions must be interpreted narrowly to ensure they do not perpetuate or reinforce existing inequalities.

Ultimately, the interpretation and application of these constitutional and legal principles will depend on how a court of law views the specific facts of a case.

There is a notable divergence of opinion between different international bodies regarding the regulation of religious symbols in the workplace.

The Court of Justice of the European Union, for instance, has ruled that private employers can, under certain conditions, ban the visible display of religious symbols without it necessarily constituting discrimination. The European Court has ruled that employers can justify prohibiting employees from wearing any visible expression of political, philosophical, or religious beliefs. This is permissible if the employer’s goal is to project a neutral image to customers or to prevent workplace disputes.

In contrast, the Human Rights Committee in Geneva has taken a different stance. In a 2018 case against France, the Committee found that firing a crèche employee for wearing a headscarf was a violation of her religious freedom.

* What legal avenues are available to employees in Mauritius who believe they have been subjected to disciplinary action or dismissal due to their refusal to remove religious attire in the workplace?

Possible avenues for recourse in such a situation include:
– Mediation: As was the case with the women who were prohibited from wearing a tikka, a mediated solution can be a less confrontational and often faster way to resolve the issue.
– Court Action: An employee may choose to pursue legal action if mediation is unsuccessful or not an option.

* Where do an employer’s dress code rules stop when they affect an employee’s religious beliefs?

Whether a workplace prohibition on wearing a hijab, a tikka, or a Christian cross is considered discriminatory hinges on a court’s legal interpretation of these items.

If the court views them as religious symbols protected by the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of religion, then preventing an employee from wearing them could be found to be discriminatory.

However, if the court interprets these items as merely ornamental attire, then a workplace ban on them might not be considered discrimination on the grounds of religion.

* How do Mauritian courts typically balance an employer’s asserted need for a specific workplace image or neutrality against an employee’s right to manifest their religion through attire? Are there precedents for “reasonable accommodation” in such cases?

In Mauritius, there are no known court cases on this specific issue. This is largely because, in the rare instances where religious discrimination has been alleged in the workplace, matters have typically been resolved through amicable settlements.

* Do the regulations or expectations regarding religious attire differ between public sector and private sector workplaces in Mauritius? For instance, are there different considerations for a government office compared to a private law firm?

Based on available information, there are no known cases of any ban on wearing the hijab (a headscarf), a tikka, or a Christian cross within the Mauritian public service.
Private firms, on the other hand, operate under their own recruitment and employment policies. As long as these policies comply with the nation’s labour laws and the constitution, companies have the autonomy to manage their workplaces as they see fit.
However, the wearing of a full-face veil could potentially lead to challenges. Such issues might arise in roles that involve interacting with the public, particularly in places like banks or other institutions where verifying a person’s identity is essential for security and transaction purposes.
* Are there specific professional codes of conduct or ethical guidelines within professions like law that might address or inadvertently impact the wearing of religious attire by practitioners or staff? If so, how do these align with broader anti-discrimination principles?

None exists. However, guide may be sought from the ruling of the European Court of Justice that ‘a company can implement a neutrality policy, but it must be genuinely motivated by a legitimate business need and not used to unfairly restrict religious freedom. While a company can strive for neutrality in its public image or interactions, this cannot be a pretext to discriminate against employees or applicants based on their religion.’

* How do such incidents affect the broader goals of workplace diversity, inclusion, and religious harmony within the professional landscape of Mauritius?

Diversity of race and religious freedom in the workplace is a complex issue. While the constitution protects against religious discrimination and requires accommodations for religious practices, implementation can be challenging. Accommodating religious expression in the workplace depends on a commitment to inclusion from employers.

* What measures or guidelines could be implemented to help employers manage issues of religious attire in a manner that respects both business needs and employee rights, and fosters an inclusive work environment?

The European Court of Justice has determined that a company can prohibit “any political, philosophical or religious sign” in the workplace without it being considered direct discrimination, provided the company has an established, neutral dress code that is applied to all employees. The court also clarified that such a ban cannot be enforced solely to satisfy a customer’s preference.

Therefore, it is advisable for private sector employers to clearly outline their dress code to job applicants during the hiring process. While this can help prevent misunderstandings, it does not completely eliminate the possibility that an employee might later choose to wear a religious symbol, which could then create a new set of issues.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 1 August 2025