Belgian Teacher Dismissed Over Headscarf Sparks Legal Fight

Hadija Amajoud, a special-needs teacher at the provincial Kiempunt Campus in Assenede, East Flanders, has been dismissed for refusing to teach without a headscarf. She is believed to be the first teacher in Flanders to lose her job for that reason, and her case has renewed a bitter debate over religious neutrality in Belgian schools.

“We teach pupils that they may be who they are, but I may not be myself,” Amajoud told VRT NWS. The socialist union ACOD has announced it will appeal the dismissal, saying the decision sets a precedent.

Context: A Gradual Ban

Amajoud began teaching at the provincial special-needs school in 2022 and already wore a headscarf when she started. According to VRT NWS, management raised no objection at first; a provincial deputy first addressed the issue in September 2023.

A supplementary staff regulation banning visible religious and life-stance symbols for provincial teaching staff took effect on 1 September 2024, with an exception for teachers of life-stance subjects such as Islamic religion. A parallel ban on religious symbols for pupils in all East Flanders provincial schools was approved on 17 December 2025 and applies from the 2026-2027 school year, passing with 26 votes in favour, five against and two abstentions.

The measure was not the province’s first attempt. Flemish Minister of Interior Affairs Hilde Crevits annulled an earlier version of the ban in July 2025 over a procedural error, as VRT NWS reported. The province did not appeal that annulment, choosing instead to re-run the procedure. The pupil ban was the result of that second attempt.

Conflicting Rulings

The legal picture is sharply divided. In December 2025, the Disputes Chamber of the Flemish Human Rights Institute (VMRI) ruled that the province had committed both direct and indirect discrimination and harassment against Amajoud, recommending that she be allowed to teach with her headscarf and that the general staff ban be withdrawn, according to VRT NWS.

The VMRI found that wearing a headscarf is not a “genuine and determining occupational requirement” for teaching, and that the ban imposed a disproportionate burden on her. It also said the province created a “hostile, offensive and humiliating working environment.” Its ruling, however, is not binding.

Earlier this year, the picture inverted. Amajoud went to the Court of First Instance of East Flanders, but her claims in summary proceedings were rejected in May 2026. The court ruled that the neutrality rule applies to all staff and that a neutral learning environment is a legitimate goal. As P-Magazine noted, two official bodies reached opposite conclusions on essentially the same facts.

Separately, on 11 May 2026, the Council of State rejected a request to suspend the pupil headscarf ban, finding the applicants had not shown sufficient urgency. Six pupils and three non-profit organisations had filed the request, VRT NWS reported. The merits procedure over the ban’s legality continues.

What Is Neutrality?

Kurt Moens, the N-VA first provincial deputy and the rule’s chief defender, has framed the dismissal as a matter of procedure and principle. “As a deputation, we are bound to ensure respect for a democratically approved staff regulation,” he told VRT NWS. He has argued the province wants neutrality in its education and that society is diverse, describing the emphasis on shared democratic values as central to the policy.

Amajoud disputes the premise. “On the basis of clothing you cannot know whether someone is neutral,” she said. “I have always performed well as a teacher; that is what should count.” She has also said the provincial authority’s approach was “anything but respectful” and amounted to intimidation. “I have the right of self-determination,” she said, describing her headscarf as “not a message” but something that defines her.

The regulation is formulated neutrally, in theory covering a headscarf, a cross on a chain, a kippah or a turban. In practice, protest and litigation have centred on the headscarf. P-Magazine observed a wrinkle in the rules: Amajoud could have kept her headscarf only by switching to teaching Islamic religion, meaning a symbol is acceptable when explicitly labelled as faith and banned when it accompanies an ordinary maths lesson.

A Broader Debate

The stakes extend well beyond one teacher. At the largest affected school, Richtpunt campus Gent, roughly 100 of 700 pupils wear a headscarf. Supporters, including the groups Mijn School Mijn Keuze, BOEH!, Muslim Rights Watch Belgium, Ella and Furia, argue the pupil ban threatens the right to education because some pupils have no realistic alternative. Lawyer Timo Lehaen, who represented pupils and organisations at the Council of State, said that for at least two pupils there is no alternative available, meaning they will be without education.

There is also an economic dimension. Flanders faces a teacher shortage, and Amajoud’s supporters argue that excluding a qualified special-needs teacher over her clothing is a self-inflicted loss. “If you don’t let a competent teacher with a special-needs education degree teach because of a headscarf, I consider that a loss, because I also reflect a part of society,” Amajoud said. Union official Stefan Haelvoet has separately claimed that disciplinary procedures are being misused against teachers who stand up for pupils.

The case has drawn public protest as well. Supporters gathered at the Provinceshuis in Ghent, and about 40 to 50 colleagues and sympathisers held a silent protest outside during an earlier disciplinary hearing, Bladna.nl reported.

What’s Next

ACOD intends to appeal the dismissal through the decretally provided procedure before the Kamer van Beroep in Brussels. “We will resist this for as long as possible,” union official Kristof Bruyland said. Amajoud has said she is losing not only her job but her income, security and permanent appointment.

Because the VMRI ruling is non-binding, the merits case at the Council of State over the legality of the ban remains pending, and the appeal against the dismissal has yet to be decided. The dismissal is, for now, the employer’s final decision — but the legal question it raises is far from settled. How far an employer may go in limiting a teacher’s personal freedom, and whether a neutral classroom requires a visibly neutral teacher, are questions that two Belgian bodies have already answered in opposite ways.