The aim of this essay is to investigate how a demarcation is made between employees’ right to religious freedom next to employers’ interest in running their enterprise in an efficient way. Case law shows that the Arrowsmith-principle forum internum and forum externum could be used when a demarcation has to be made. Furthermore, case law shows that that the employee—when accepting a contract of employment—have accepted certain restrictions of his or her religious freedom. When the employee later on isn’t willing to fulfill duties stated in the contract—due to his or her religious beliefs—it has been defined as labor refusal. However, it seems as though The Court has come to develop a nuanced view on the matter, arguing in the case of Eweida v the United Kingdom for restrictions—when made on employee’s freedom of religion—to be proportionate. Case law further shows that religious beliefs are not protected when they’re challenging other fundamental rights such as protection from discrimination due to sexual orientation. Conflict has surfaced when religious employees were unable to shake hands with employers of the opposite sex, asked for time to pray during working hours and requested to wear a headscarf or a turban at work. The essay also investigates the Swedish legal case ”handskakningsfallet” where the religious manifestation was decided on the basis of direct discrimination. However, the essay finds strong reasons for such manifestations to be assessed in relation to indirect discrimination, which would enable for proportionate assessments. Furthermore, such assessments would pave way for fair and correct judgements when investigating if one has been discriminated or not.   Lastly the essay highlights the importance of making such proportionate assessment stated above when deciding if religious interests should be protected or not on the labour market to enable a fair balance between all interests. / Uppsatsen undersöker hur gränsdragningen görs när arbetstagare vill nyttja sin religionsfrihet i relation till arbetsgivares intresse att på ett effektivt sätt leda och fördela arbetet. Arrowsmith-principen vad gäller forum internum och externum kan användas vägledande vid sådana gränsdragningar. Rättspraxis visar vidare att anställningsavtalet tillmäts stor betydelse och att arbetstagaren vid ingående av avtal får anses sig ha underkastat sig de regler och krav avtalet ställer. När arbetstagaren sålunda har vägrat att utföra de arbetsuppgifter som faller inom ramen för anställningen med hänvisning till sin religiösa tro har detta bedömts vara arbetsvägran. Europadomstolen synes dock ha utvecklat en mer nyanserad syn i frågan och motiverar i fallet Eweida mot Storbritannien för vikten av en proportionalitetsbedömning när religionsfriheten begränsas i anställningsförhållandet. Vidare visar rättspraxis att religiösa åskådningar inte skyddas när de utmanar andra mänskliga rättigheter, såsom exempelvis skyddet mot diskriminering p.g.a. sexuell läggning.  Konflikt har uppstått när religiösa arbetstagare inte kunnat ta arbetsgivare av det motsatta könet i hand, velat be på arbetstid samt velat bära slöja eller turban på arbetsplatsen. Uppsatsen undersöker också ”handskakningsfallet” och övervägande skäl talar för att frågan om religiösa manifestationer torde bedömas utifrån indirekt diskriminering. Proportionalitetsbedömningar torde på ett rättvist och korrekt sätt avgöra om diskriminering ligger för handen eller inte.  Avslutningsvis betonar uppsatsen vikten av proportionalitetsbedömningar i varje enskilt fall för att avgöra om religiösa intressen ska skyddas respektive inte skyddas på arbetsmarknaden för att sålunda uppnå en balans mellan samtliga intressen.

Indirect discrimination is one form of discrimination according to the Swedish diskrimineringslag (2008:567). This type of discrimination is a more abstract form than direct discrimination. The direct discrimination-form is the one where one person is intending to discriminate another person because of that person belonging to a group protected against discrimination by the law. Indirect discrimination on the other hand is when one person is discriminated because of a policy or a rule that is not intending to be discriminating. This makes this form of discrimination much harder to see and make visible, that is because the intention is not needed. In this thesis the focus is indirect discrimination and how the state have a responsibility to prevent that indirect discrimination occur. To make it easier to see the indirect discrimination and who is being subject for it, this thesis is using a structural discrimination theory to provide what is missing in the law. By using this theory, this thesis argue that the state is taking less responsibility and puts the responsibility on the single managers of institutions instead. The duty of the state is thereby hard to show and makes the law difficult to use from a structural discrimination perspective.