nam 22 uu 4500 10.17176/20210301-153905-0 DE-Verfassungsblog cr||||| 210301s2021||||xx#|||||o|||| ||| 0|eng|| 10.17176/20210301-153905-0 doi eng 342 23 van den Brink, Martijn Author aut Preserving Prejudice in the Name of Profit AG Rantos’ Opinion in IX v Wabe and MH Müller Handels GmbH van den Brink, Martijn Verfassungsblog 2021-03-01 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Few CJEU judgments in recent years have received more criticism than the ‘headscarf judgments’, Achbita and Bougnaoui. In particular the decision in Achbita that private employers can legitimately pursue a policy of neutrality and ban expressions of political, religious, or philosophical belief at work, proved contentious. Two other headscarf cases, IX v Wabe and MH Müller, are currently pending before the CJEU and provide it with an excellent opportunity to do so. However, the first signs are not promising: Last week, Advocate General Rantos delivered his Opinion in these cases, which may be even more unpalatable than the Achbita judgment itself. funded by the government CC BY-SA 4.0 Achbita Advocate General CJEU Discrimination freedom of religion Max Steinbeis Verfassungsblog gGmbH Verfassungsblog 2366-7044 https://staging.verfassungsblog.de/preserving-prejudice-in-the-name-of-profit/ raw object