smith figured that the headscarf signified that it was a religious headscarf. what the 10th circuit said was that was insufficient, what was needed was actual knowledge. our position is that when you assume when it signifies to you that in accommodation is needed that is sufficient notice. >> does that -- is that subjective or is it even relevant? >> meaning? >> the issue is whether they failed to hire her because of a religious practice. whether the person thinks it is is the issue. that is why they acted. >> that is why we think that makes this a straightforward case. what the employer did here is active on the assumption that she needed to wear the headscarf for religious reasons and later claimed refuge that it did not have efficient knowledge that sufficient knowledge or certainty for the, -- sufficient knowledge or certainty for the process. >> i think there is substantial forced to your argument that the employee does not have to mention this first but why do we use the term understand instead of know? action was taken because of religion, you know. why

. >> for students wearing a headscarf at school is not a problem, but for their teachers, it has been a different matter. in 2003, the german constitutional court issued a ban on headscarves responding to the case brought by a teacher who had been denied a promotion because of the headscarf. but they refused to remove the headscarves, and petitioned the top court for redress and now they have won. the judges said it did not constitute a danger by itself, neither for peaceful pro-existence of the school or the neutrality of the state. >> it does not violate students' rights per se, and it does not mean the state embraces the religion. >> the judges said the decision was too sweeping, calling the ban a violation of religious freedom. schools can have the right to forbid headscarves, but only if it poses a risk of disruption. the court also overturned a part of the education act emphasizing christian values and traditions saying it disadvantaged other religions and was not valid. six out of the 16 states will have to make major changes to their school laws as a result. >> major changes.

negative about muslims and suggests there should be no alternatives served in school and that the headscarf should be banned from universities. that has some criticism within his own party. a rather curious front page. beaten but happy. do not know what the socialists have to be happy about the cousin did perform poorly. i suppose that is the only ray of sunshine you can say exists there. this poll is not a referendum on government policy and is not going to be chasing -- not going to be changing the course of the policy line. genie: the election was marred by violence and controversy. what have the papers been saying? emma: a u.k. newspaper spoke to wallace, the foremost man of letters and the nation's conscience, if you will. he is 80 years old. he has been manning the phones, taking those calls with complaints of irregularity technical problems with voting and reports of violence. he has denounced the poll as boulder and violent. he is also scathing about goodluck jonathan and his handling of the kidnapping of those schoolgirls. a former military dictator is being described as a born-aga

she started wearing a headscarf and mail in secret and then more openly. her parents were concerned but did not realize how much she had been radicalized. >> my whole world fell apart. i couldn't understand why. reporter: she had been targeted by islamic state propagandists. on the internet, she met jihadists that were keen to get married. they mentioned a woman retrieving -- recruiting girls to become brides for fighters. one reads without her, i wouldn't have had the courage. the woman convinced the 16-year-old to travel to syria. the trip was perfectly planned. she obviously had helped and used her savings and managed to get a hold of a plane ticket. she counted the days until her departure. >> i saw her on her last day. she wanted to come to the post office with me. she hugged me. it nothing out of the ordinary except that she never did things like that. i said, what's up with you. she said, nothing. reporter: she left home in the early morning. the 16-year-old had no problem getting through passport control. there are no clear travel regulations in ge

the mother of seven said once or twice a month she's ridiculed because she wears a headscarf. she also said she's been excluded from her children's school field trips, and back in 2012 she had a confrontation in a store. >> ( translated ): a woman tore into me, really insulted me. she said you've rejected our origin. because she knew that i'm french, because i told her. she really insulted me with all these names. she almost hit me. >> reporter: bensilla said she reported the incident to the police, but nothing happened. according to a national muslim advocacy group in france, after the paris attacks the number of islamophobic acts across the country increased by 70%, compared to the same time period last year. >> ( translated ): it doesn't bother me. i ignore them. but, when you have your kids with you and someone insults you, it's degrading. and frankly when it happens on the street it's hard to justify it to the kids, they don't understand. my son, he says, when i'm big, i'm going to fight these people if they talk to you that way. and i say, you can't respond to aggression

so from a french perspective, if some magical laws restricting whether it's wearing headscarfs or whether it's speaking your mind regardless of how hateful and obnoxious the words were would that make it better or worse in the short term, medium term and long term, and how realistic is it to even think policymakers would move in the direction of less restriction? sylvie: i don't think we're really discussing or considering more limitations to free speech. as floyd abraham said, we already have legislation in place which -- for historical reason. the holocaust took place on our continent. nazism was on the european continent. so this was different. this there is consensus on these laws generally. so nobody thinks seriously that in france we're going to have laws prohibiting or limiting the way you can draw the mohammed or mock such religion or the other one. i don't think this is being considered at this stage. what may happen -- and what is already happening i think is that we all will be a bit more cautious. we already saw that in 2006 when those cartoons were first published in denmark.

abercrombie and fitch discriminate against a muslim woman and he declined to hire her because she wore a headscarf to clash with the company's dress code. .. >> rather than just correctly understand the need for an accommodation. neither requirement -- >> what is the difference between knowing and correctly understanding? >> your honor, the testimony it's a fair question. the tenth circus perceived the difference. what the testimony was was that ms. cook assumed that she needed to wear the head scarf because she was religious, she figured the head scarf signified that it was a religious head scarf. what the tenth circuit was that was insufficient, what was needed was actual knowledge. our figure is when you figure, when you assume, when it signifies to you that a religious accommodation is needed, that is sufficient notice for an employer to be on notice. >> [inaudible conversations] >> i'm sorry. is that subjective, or is it even relevant? meaning the issue is whether they failed to hire her because of a religious practice. whether the person thinks it is is the issue. and that's why -- [inaudibl