• 1 Declaration of Intent of 5 March 2018 between the Government, the Swedish Trade Union Confederation (...)

2In March 2018, following three months of negotiations, the Swedish Government and the social partners signed a declaration of intent whereby the Government agrees to support this joint initiative.1 Next, the Government will draft a state aid notification to be filed to the European Commission. There is also a need for legislative amendments in some areas. The necessary arrangements are expected to be in place in early 2019.

• 2 P. Norris and R. Ingelhart, Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide, Cambridge Universi (...)

8Sweden is a highly secular country, sometimes referred to as the least religious country in the Western world.2 Until recently, the issue of religion in business has not attracted much attention, and still, only a few cases have been tried before a court.

• 3 In addition, recently, there has been a high profile-case concerning a Christian midwife who refuse (...)

9Discrimination on the ground of religion is prohibited in the Discrimination Act, which in 2009 replaced the then four separate acts on discrimination; on the grounds of gender, sexual orientation, disability, and ethnicity (including religion). The Discrimination Ombudsman has legal standing in discrimination cases, provided that the trade union refer from bringing action. When possible, the Ombudsman should always try to reach a reconciliation where the employer pays a damage without a court trial. Most discrimination cases are resolved through reconciliation, and only a very small number reaches the Courts. The vast majority of the reconciliations regarding discrimination on the ground of religion mediated by the Discrimination Ombudsman, as well as the majority of the few Court cases on the same matter, has concerned Muslims.3 The main topic has been the use of Islamic headscarfs, followed by the refusal to shake hand with people of the opposite sex. Most recently, the use of plastic underarm covers has been the focus on attention.

• 4 Stockholm Municipal Court, case T 3905-15, Discrimination Ombudsman v The Swedish state through Kar (...)
• 5 Discrimination Ombudsman, decision GRA 2017/26 of 29 August 2017. http://www.do.se/globalassets/sta (...)

10In 2016, the Stockholm District Court ruled in a case concerning a Muslim student in the dental program who was to begin her clinical training at Karolinska Institutet.4 According to the work place policy, which had been developed in accordance with guidelines from the National Health and Welfare Board, all clinical staff was required to work with bare underarms. Her application to wear plastic underarm covers due to religious convictions was declined. As the claimant was a student and the respondent was therefore the education provider, this case was not tried before the Swedish Labour Court. The District Court found that the requirement of bare underarms was more burdensome for some Muslim women compared to other groups. As it could not be established with certainty that plastic underarm covers caused genuine hygienic concerns, the District Court did not find that the education provider had succeeded in showing an objective justification of a possible indirect discrimination. The discrimination claim was thus approved. In line with this case, in August 2017, the Discrimination Ombudsman decided in a working life case regarding another large hospital.5 The authority made clear that the hospital could no longer upheld its requirement of bare underarms for staff at the maternity ward.

• 6 Swedish Labour Court AD 2017 No 65, Equality Ombudsman, The Peoples Dentists of Stockholm County (J (...)

11However, in December 2017, a very similar case was brought before the Labour Court, which came to quite the opposite conclusion.6 Notwithstanding the judgement in the case of Karolinska Institutet, the public dental care provider Folktandvården Stockholm upheld its requirement for all dentists to work with bare underarms. The Discrimination Ombudsman brought Folktandvården before the Swedish Labour Court, representing a Muslim dentist who was denied to wear plastic underarm covers. Just like in the Karolinska Institutet case, the Swedish Labour Court found that the requirement to work with bare underarms is more burdensome for some Muslim women compared to other groups, and that the case was to be tried as a case of indirect discrimination. Although the proof regarding the hygienic concerns was exactly the same as in the Karolinska Institutet case, the Labour Court found that the employer had succeeded in meeting the requirement for objective justifications.