Janet Epp-Buckingham, Director, WEA Office to the UN in Geneva; Executive Editor, International Journal for Religious Freedom
This is a very important topic because most of us spend considerable time at work and in our workplaces and it is important that we be able to do so without facing discrimination or hostility because of our faith.
I note the important work of Brian Grim and the Religious Freedom & Business Foundation in this regard. They encourage businesses to allow employees to “bring their whole selves to work”. This requires that businesses accommodate employees’ religious practices but also that they openly support employees having and expressing their faith at work.
Today, I am going to be focusing not on private acceptance of religious employees but rather on government restrictions on religion in the workplace, specifically, laïcité. More specifically, I will focus on employees being able to wear religious dress at work. This includes Muslim women wearing the hijab, headscarf, or niqab, face veil. As well, it includes Jewish men wearing the kippa and Sikhs wearing turbans and kirpans, ceremonial dagger.
For those of you who do not live in this part of the world, laïcité is a French concept. It is a form of secularism that we call “closed secularism”. That means that the government wishes to privatize religion. You may practice your faith in your home and in your house of worship but outside that, there may be restrictions. Laïcité has spread to other French-speaking jurisdictions, including to Belgium, to the Canadian francophone province of Quebec and to Geneva, as part of francophone Switzerland.
Starting with France. Laïcité emerged out of a particular historical trajectory. Its origins are often traced to the French Revolution of 1789, when the monarchy’s close alliance with the Catholic Church came under intense scrutiny. Revolutionary leaders sought to redefine authority, replacing religious legitimacy with the sovereignty of the people. In this context, religion became something to be carefully contained within the private sphere, rather than exercised as a source of public power. The French motto, adopted during the Revolution is “liberté, egalité, fraternité”. Having a secular public square is seen as part of “egalité”. You make everyone equal by making them the same.
This process culminated in the landmark 1905 Law on the Separation of Churches and State. That law formalized two essential commitments: the neutrality of the state in religious matters, and the protection of freedom of conscience. In principle, laïcité was meant to ensure that individuals could believe, or not believe, without coercion, while preventing the state from privileging any religious tradition.
Yet, as we reflect on the development of laïcité, it becomes clear that this principle has never been static. Its meaning and application have evolved alongside changes in French society. In the early 20th century, laïcité largely functioned as a safeguard against clerical influence. In contemporary France, however, it operates in a more religiously diverse context—one marked by the presence of Islam, alongside longstanding Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish communities.
This shift has introduced new tensions. Policies such as the prohibition of conspicuous religious symbols in public schools, enacted in 2004, and legislation prohibiting face coverings in 2010, have sparked ongoing debate. On the one hand, these measures are defended as necessary expressions of state neutrality and social cohesion. On the other hand, critics argue that they risk constraining individual religious expression, particularly for minority communities.
Indeed, a Muslim woman brought a case before the UN Human Rights Committee after she was fined for wearing a niqab in a public place. The Committee decided against France in 2018.
The concept of laïcité has permeated the workplace as well. A French lawyer faced a new rule that she could not wear the hijab with her legal gown worn at court. She brought a legal challenge, as a lawyer would, but lost. The European Court of Human Rights declined to hear the appeal. This means that this lawyer cannot represent clients in court but rather was forced to change her practice area away from criminal law.
Laïcité in Belgium has developed differently from the stricter French model, reflecting the country’s tradition of “philosophical pluralism” rather than full separation of religion and state: the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion (Art. 19). However, employers, including municipalities, are permitted to prohibit the wearing of religious symbols at work if they are part of a policy of neutrality. The European Court of Justice upheld this in 2021. In a 2023 case, a Muslim woman challenged her employer, the municipality of Ans, for banning the hijab even when she did not have a public facing role. The Court upheld this as well.
Switzerland offers a particularly instructive case for discussions on freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) in the workplace, given its federal structure, the significant autonomy of its cantons, and its tradition of direct democracy. Approaches to religious expression therefore vary across the country. The canton of Geneva, for example, has explicitly embraced laïcité as a guiding principle in public institutions. This approach has been shaped in part by early legal disputes, including a 1996 case involving a primary school teacher who, after converting to Islam, was prohibited from wearing a headscarf in the classroom. Swiss courts upheld this restriction, and the European Court of Human Rights later confirmed that, in this context, the limitation was justified by the need to protect the neutrality of the public education system and the rights of young children.
Geneva passed a law in 2019, Law on the Laicity of the State, which requires public employees—especially those in contact with the public—to refrain from displaying visible religious affiliation, including through dress or symbols. Part of the law was overturned, that which banned elected officials from wearing visible religious symbols while performing their duties. Just recently, two weeks ago on 14 June, Geneva voters approved by over 51% a constitutional amendment banning elected politicians from wearing visible religious symbols while performing their duties.
I note that private employers are generally much more accommodating in Geneva and elsewhere in Switzerland.
Finally, the province of Quebec passed a laïcité law in 2021. It prohibits government workers with front-facing jobs from wearing “visible or invisible” religious symbols. I am not entirely sure how they discover if you are wearing an invisible religious symbol. Given that the Canadian Constitution guarantees religious freedom, the province used a controversial provision, called the “notwithstanding clause” to shield the legislation from constitutional review. Like the French law, this applies to teachers, police officers, government lawyers and court workers. The application of the law was recently expanded in its scope to include youth protection workers and those working in health services.
This recent law, passed in April 2026, also changes the legal standard for the general duty of religious accommodation for both public and private sector employers. The legal threshold to deny a religious accommodation was lowered from “undue hardship” to “more than minimal hardship,” meaning employers can reject requests if they cause minor inconvenience.
While much of my remarks focused on public sector employment, it sets a public tone in a country. If the government restricts the wearing of religious dress, private employers are encouraged to have similar restrictions. This creates an unwelcoming environment for religious adherents whose religion requires religious dress. The clear message is not to bring your whole self to work.
Stay Connected