BAG: No headscarf ban for aviation security assistants

Federal Labor Court, ruling of January 29, 2026 – 8 AZR 49/25

In its ruling of January 29, 2026 (8 AZR 49/25), the Federal Labor Court (BAG) once again had to deal with the question of whether headscarves worn for religious reasons are permitted in the workplace. The BAG clarifies that even as an aviation security assistant at passenger and baggage screening, there is no justification for a blanket ban on headscarves. If an employer rejects an application because the applicant wears such a headscarf, this constitutes unjustified discrimination on the grounds of religion. At the same time, the Eighth Senate rejects a blanket requirement of neutrality for entrusted companies in this area and confirms a claim for compensation under Section 15 (2) AGG.

At the time of publication, the written grounds for the judgment are not yet available. The key guidelines are taken from the BAG press release.

Background

The General Equal Treatment Act (AGG) prohibits discrimination on grounds including religion (Sections 7, 1 AGG) and grants monetary compensation in the event of violations by employers (Section 15 (2) AGG). The burden of proof is eased by Section 22 AGG: if the disadvantaged person presents evidence suggesting discrimination, the employer must refute this assumption.

In very limited exceptional cases, different treatment, e. g., on the grounds of religion, may be permissible. This is the case if the characteristic in question constitutes a genuine and determining occupational requirement (Section 8 (1) AGG).

Facts

The plaintiff, a Muslim, applied for a position as an aviation security assistant at a security company licensed by the Federal Police at Hamburg Airport. She wears a headscarf in public for religious reasons. During the application process, she submitted a photo of herself wearing a headscarf. Shortly thereafter, she received a rejection without explanation.

In the lawsuit, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff had been rejected because of gaps in her resume – not because she wore a headscarf. However, it also claimed that a company agreement prohibiting head coverings of any kind applied. The defendant also invoked a state requirement of neutrality to which aviation security assistants, as agents of the federal police, were subject.

The labor court and regional labor court upheld the claim and awarded compensation in the amount of €3,500.

The decision

The Federal Labor Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed the employer's appeal. Taking all the circumstances into account, the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence within the meaning of Section 22 AGG to suggest discrimination on the basis of her religion. The defendant employer had not been able to refute this presumption.

The court emphasized that not wearing a headscarf was not an essential and decisive professional requirement within the meaning of Section 8 (1) AGG for working in passenger and baggage control. Nor did abstract fears that religious symbols could exacerbate an already conflict-prone situation at control points carry any weight. There were no objective indications of increased conflicts due to female aviation security assistants wearing headscarves. The compensation decision of the lower courts therefore remained unchanged.

Practical information

For employers – including those in the security and service sectors – the decision clarifies the limits of blanket neutrality requirements. Internal guidelines or works agreements that generally prohibit head coverings or religious symbols are legally risky if they are not based on a sound foundation. All restrictions on the free practice of religion should therefore be examined very critically in order to avoid creating evidence of discrimination.

Since the burden of proof regularly lies with the employer, particular caution is required early on in the application process. The BAG's decision clearly illustrates that even a rejection can potentially be sufficient to trigger a claim for compensation by an applicant.