Sarah chose to enroll in the boxing class offered by her university, but when she showed up for the class, the sports instructor refused her entry because she was wearing a headscarf. He justified this by citing the principle of secularism.

As for Ines, she was denied entry to her gym because of her headscarf. The establishment’s neutrality was invoked.

Can I be prohibited from practicing a sport because I wear a headscarf?

What does the law say?

Higher education is not affected by Law No. 2004-228 of March 15, 2004 which, in application of the principle of secularism, regulates the wearing of signs or attire manifesting a religious affiliation in public schools, colleges, and high schools. Consequently, the wearing of religious signs and attire is generally allowed provided it does not interfere with teaching and research activities and does not disturb public order (Art. L. 811-1-2 of the Education Code).

As an exception, the freedom to manifest one’s religion can be limited for safety and hygiene reasons. The safety argument must be justifiable in terms of its appropriateness in light of the sport in question on one hand, and its proportionality on the other. Wearing a headscarf is not necessarily incompatible with safety requirements. Headscarves perfectly adapted for sports and approved are used by high-level athletes during international competitions.

In 2020, the legal department of the University of Lille finally recognized the illegality of refusing students wearing headscarves access to the university’s sports classes. A memo was thus distributed to all sports instructors stating that “the wearing of a distinctive sign of religious affiliation cannot be prohibited […] as long as it does not affect safety and hygiene […] (e.g., headscarf specially designed for sports)”.

For clubs and gyms, the principle of secularism does not apply in private spaces open to the public, so internal regulations cannot prohibit all religious signs on this basis.

Making a service conditional on religion is illegal discrimination and contrary to freedom of religion (Art. 225-1 and 225-2 of the Penal Code). Consequently, a systematic and absolute exclusion appears disproportionate and therefore contrary to Articles 225-1 and 225-2 of the Penal Code.

This discrimination aimed at prohibiting access to a place open to the public constitutes an offense punishable by 5 years of imprisonment and a fine of €75,000 (Art. 225-2 of the Penal Code).

Regarding the neutrality argument, no legislative provision or jurisprudential position establishes a principle of neutrality for private places open to the public that would justify limitations on religious freedom.

The Paris Court of Appeal reminds that limitations on religious freedom can only be imposed by law, for a legitimate purpose, and only by proportionate means (CA Paris, June 8, 2010, Benkirane).

In a judgment dated June 17, 2014, delivered by the Thionville Criminal Court (No. 653/14 SA), the manager of a gym was convicted under Article 225-1 and 2 of the Penal Code for having excluded a woman wearing a headscarf based on the argument of neutrality, which was deemed to constitute discrimination based on religion (Cf. decision of the Defender of Rights MLD-2014-204 p.7)

For competitions, a National Federation may provide for restrictions on the manifestation of beliefs during sports competitions organized by it, based on the provisions of Article 1 of Law No. 2021-1109 of August 24, 2021. But in this context as well, the restrictions must be necessary, adapted, and proportionate to the goal sought.

The French Football Federation (FFF) has invoked reasons of neutrality to prohibit the practice for users wearing headscarves, as has the French Rugby Federation. The Council of State was asked to repeal the ‘principle of neutrality’ advocated in Article 1 of the FFF statutes and considered (CE 29 June 2023, No. 458088) that for FFF agents or persons over whom it exercises hierarchical authority or management power, and particularly those selected for French national teams by the Federation, it is the principle of public service neutrality that applies.

Furthermore, the Defender of Rights recalls that ‘despite a controversial debate on the extent of neutrality in sports competitions, the International Olympic Committee authorizes female athletes to wear headscarves during the Olympic Games’ and that ‘the International Football Association Board, the deliberative body for FIFA’s laws of the game (…) concluded in March 2014 that there was no contraindication to wearing headgear and therefore decided to accept it definitively (…)’ (Defender of Rights decision MLD-2014-204, p.8).

What should I do?

• Verify that a clause in the internal regulations or your contract generally prohibits any distinctive religious signs;
• Request a written and justified explanation for this refusal;
• Contact the person in charge of the sports department at your university or the manager of the sports center to inform them of the illegality of this requirement;
• File a complaint with the Defender of Rights;
• Contact Equitas who will provide you with support and legal assistance

REFERENCES TO APPLICABLE TEXTS

Principle of religious freedom: Art. 10 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789; Art. 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Discrimination: Art.225-1 and 225-2 of the Criminal Code; Decision of the Defender of Rights MLD-2014-204; Decision of the Defender of Rights No. 2018-290; Decision of the Defender of Rights No. 2023-143;

Case law: Thionville Criminal Court, 17 June 2014, No. 653/14 SA.