Discrimination: Federal Labor Court (BAG) rules on headscarf ban for airport employees

Imagine you possess all the qualifications for a responsible position in aviation security. You go through the application process, dutifully submit your documents, and—after a photo of you is provided—receive a prompt rejection without any explanation . The only visible difference between your profile and the job requirements seems to be a piece of fabric: your religiously motivated headscarf . This very scenario formed the basis of a legal dispute that reached its decisive conclusion before the Federal Labor Court (BAG) on January 29, 2026. It's about far more than an individual application; it's about the fundamental question of how far the state's duty of neutrality extends and where discrimination based on religion begins. In our daily practice as a law firm specializing in visa and employment law, we often witness how subtle or overt barriers are erected for religious people in the job market. This ruling, case number 8 AZR 49/25, now sets a clear precedent.

The situation: When the photo becomes an obstacle

The plaintiff, a devout Muslim woman, sought employment as an aviation security assistant in Hamburg. Her potential employer was a private company, a limited liability company (GmbH), which, however, performs sovereign tasks for the Federal Police as a so-called delegated authority. Specifically, the position involved passenger and baggage screening – a sensitive area, but one that does not necessarily require the absolute neutrality we associate, for example, with judges or police officers in the line of duty. After the woman submitted her resume, including a photograph in which she wore a headscarf covering her hair, she was rejected. The opposing side's argument relied heavily on an alleged obligation of neutrality demanded by the Federal Police Directorate . They feared that religious symbols could escalate tensions in the already often conflict-ridden atmosphere of security checks. We frequently observe such arguments as attempts to cloak subjective prejudices in the guise of objective security requirements.

The legal assessment according to the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG)

As lawyers, we primarily focus on the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG) in this case . The plaintiff sought compensation under Section 15 Paragraph 2 of the AGG , which provides for appropriate monetary compensation in cases of discrimination . The Federal Labor Court (BAG) has now upheld the decisions of the lower courts and awarded the woman €3,500 in compensation, roughly equivalent to one month's gross salary. The decisive point of the ruling lies in Section 8 Paragraph 1 of the AGG. This provision permits differential treatment only if a specific characteristic – in this case, not wearing a headscarf – constitutes a "substantial and determining occupational requirement." The court clarified that the job of a security assistant can, in principle, be performed while wearing a headscarf . The mere assumption that religious symbols could incite conflict is insufficient, without concrete evidence, to restrict the freedom of religion protected by Article 4 of the Basic Law.

The limits of neutrality in public service

A particularly interesting aspect of this case is the company's role as a "contractor." Although the limited liability company (GmbH) performs state-mandated aviation security tasks, it remains a private organization. The Federal Labor Court (BAG) drew an important line here: Just because a private company acts on behalf of the state does not automatically mean it is subject to the same strict neutrality requirements as a judge or a police officer. We know from the jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court that, for example, legal trainees can be obligated to neutrality during their training ( Federal Constitutional Court, Decision of January 14, 2020, Case No. 2 BvR 1333/17 ), as they represent the state in a classic hierarchical situation. In the case of an aviation security assistant, however, functional security is paramount, not the religious abstinence of the staff. The court emphasized that there is no objective evidence that passengers react more aggressively simply because the security officer wears a headscarf.

Classification within current case law

This ruling is part of a series of decisions. While the European Court of Justice (ECJ) permits private employers to prescribe a neutral dress code, provided it applies generally and without discrimination to all religions ( ECJ, Judgment of November 28, 2023, Case C-148/22 ), German courts are often stricter in their assessment. The Federal Labor Court (BAG) requires employers to provide a concrete explanation as to why religious clothing hinders work performance . An abstract concern for workplace harmony is insufficient. In the area of schools, it has also been ruled that blanket bans without a concrete threat to school peace are unlawful. For us as a law firm, the recent ruling of January 29, 2026, represents a further strengthening of employee rights and a clear rejection of "preventive" discrimination in security-relevant, but civilian-oriented professions.

Conclusion and outlook for applicants

The Federal Labor Court's ruling sends a clear signal for greater inclusion in the labor market . It clarifies that religious diversity has its place even in sensitive areas like aviation security, as long as there is no concrete threat to safety or orderly operations. Companies can no longer hide behind vague "neutrality" to exclude applicants wearing headscarves. For affected women, this represents a significant improvement in their legal position: A rejection without justification after submitting a photo of a woman wearing a headscarf constitutes discrimination, which obligates them to pay compensation. We strongly recommend that companies review their recruitment processes and internal policies for compliance with the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG) to avoid costly compensation payments.

Do you feel you have been denied a job because of your religious beliefs or appearance, or do you, as an employer, need advice on creating legally sound neutrality guidelines? We are happy to support you in protecting your rights and implementing the complex requirements of the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG) in practice.