Was this woman really fired just because of a headscarf?

From the picture it sounds as if an employee of a drugstore named Müller was fired and refused to pay her wages. But is that the case, or have the image makers hid the truth under a cloth?

Here we have to say very clearly: The truth lies in the details, or more precisely in the small print. It is true that the drugstore chain tried to ban the employee from wearing a headscarf according to her employment contract and house rules. The following sharepic was probably created on this occasion, which can currently be found increasingly on Facebook:

image

The reason given here was that it is essential for economic success and equal rights/equal treatment of market employees to come to work without a headscarf, or rather without religious identifying features. It is important that the customer is given a feeling of neutrality in the market, regardless of what religious belief they belong to. The drugstore chain put it exactly like this:

“….a company-wide regulation was created according to which visible religious, political and other ideological signs would be inadmissible in the workplace in the future.”

That's exactly why the employee was instructed to remove the headscarf. If she does not comply with this order, she will be refused entry into the market. Since she did not comply with this, she was denied work and wages. The employee went to court for the first time in 2014. By mutual agreement, an agreement was reached in 2015 in which the employee was allowed to continue working in the store, but only in the inventory area, not in the sales room.

However, a termination without notice was only given in 2016. Since the employee was pregnant and therefore brought charges again, this charge was declared admissible by both the labor court and the regional court after the drugstore filed an appeal. The reason for this is the generally applicable freedom of religion and the non-sovereign work associated with it. The situation is different when carrying out sovereign activities, such as the police.

It is important here that when carrying out the activity, it is essential to ensure that it is carried out neutrally and that it is acted accordingly. No religious beliefs, political attitudes or other partisan attitudes may appear or be applied here.

A young case

Unlike in this case in a drugstore.
In addition, the judge points out that people of different religions go shopping in the drugstore, including those with headscarves. This judgment was made legally valid on March 27, 2018 and can be viewed or read through again.

In summary: It is true that the Müller drugstore chain tried to ban an employee from wearing a headscarf, but failed twice and, above all, in court.

References:

Decision of the Nuremberg Regional Labor Court dated March 27, 2018

Müller drugstore imposes headscarf ban

Author: Sven Obrusnik, mimikama.org


If you enjoyed this post and value the importance of well-founded information, become part of the exclusive Mimikama Club! Support our work and help us promote awareness and combat misinformation. As a club member you receive:

📬 Special Weekly Newsletter: Get exclusive content straight to your inbox.
🎥 Exclusive video* “Fact Checker Basic Course”: Learn from Andre Wolf how to recognize and combat misinformation.
📅 Early access to in-depth articles and fact checks: always be one step ahead.
📄 Bonus articles, just for you: Discover content you won't find anywhere else.
📝 Participation in webinars and workshops : Join us live or watch the recordings.
✔️ Quality exchange: Discuss safely in our comment function without trolls and bots.

Join us and become part of a community that stands for truth and clarity. Together we can make the world a little better!

* In this special course, Andre Wolf will teach you how to recognize and effectively combat misinformation. After completing the video, you have the opportunity to join our research team and actively participate in the education - an opportunity that is exclusively reserved for our club members!


Notes:
1) This content reflects the current state of affairs at the time of publication. The reproduction of individual images, screenshots, embeds or video sequences serves to discuss the topic. 2) Individual contributions were created through the use of machine assistance and were carefully checked by the Mimikama editorial team before publication. ( Reason )