A/HRC/10/8 page 16 the previous mandate-holder was informed about a number of obstacles faced by religious minorities in their access to public-sector jobs, especially with regard to positions of responsibility (A/55/280/Add.2, paras. 50 and 64). The first mandate-holder, Angelo d’Almeida Ribeiro, also noted that, in one country, the Government had required private employers to dismiss employees belonging to a certain sect and had instructed administrative departments to prepare lists of members of the sect employed in the departments (E/CN.4/1987/35, para. 63). 42. The Special Rapporteur was also provided with evidence of persistent inequalities and religious differentials in relation to employment. For instance, during a recent country visit, she noted a serious level of underrepresentation of Catholics in the police, prison services, other criminal justice agencies and at the senior level of the civil service, while Protestants were underrepresented in sectors such as education and health (A/HRC/7/10/Add.3, para. 38). During another country mission, the previous mandate-holder observed that Catholics seemed, in practice, not to be accepted for careers in the army, the police and other sensitive areas of the administration, including diplomacy (A/51/542/Add.1, paras. 65-67). Whereas such cases may be regarded as de facto or indirect discrimination, the Special Rapporteur would like to remind States of their obligation to take immediate measures that are likely to lead to the elimination of these persistent inequalities and religious differentials as soon as possible. 43. Discrimination based on religion or belief in the context of access to employment has also been addressed by the Special Rapporteur with regard to the issue of the wearing of religious symbols. The Special Rapporteur highlighted in a thematic report (E/CN.4/2006/5, para. 55) that legislative and administrative actions would be typically incompatible with international human rights law if they apply restrictions which are intended to, or lead to, overt discrimination or camouflaged differentiation depending on religion or belief. In the event that restrictions would be compatible with human rights, State agencies must nonetheless not apply them in a discriminatory manner or with a discriminatory purpose, for example by arbitrarily targeting certain communities or groups. The Special Rapporteur, however, emphasized that contentious situations need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by weighing the different rights, according to the circumstances of a given situation. She referred to pertinent international case law, including to the views of the Human Rights Committee on a communication related to the termination of the labour contract of a Sikh employee wearing a turban in his daily life and who refused to wear safety headgear during his work in a national railway company. In response to the employee’s complaint that the company had discriminated against him on the basis of his religion, the Committee argued that “legislation requiring that workers in federal employment be protected from injury and electric shock by the wearing of hard hats is to be regarded as reasonable and directed towards objective purposes that are compatible with the Covenant”.9 The Special Rapporteur emphasizes that, on a similar matter, another State enacted specific legislation exempting Sikhs from the requirement to wear safety helmets on construction sites and offering protection to Sikhs from discrimination in this connection.10 9 Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-fifth session, Supplement No. 40 (A/45/40), vol. II, chap. IX (E), para. 6.2. 10 See sections 11 and 12 of the Employment Act 1989 of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.