Home > News

Latest News What Not to Wear 15th April 2010 The Court of Appeal has held that a requirement that an employee removed or covered a cross she wore on a necklace did not amount to indirect religious discrimination. The Court upheld the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decisions on the basis that the claim could only be based on a disadvantage to a group, not to one individual. Ms Eweida, a practising Christian, worked for British Airways as a member of check-in staff. After refusing for the third time in 2006 to conceal a cross she wore on a necklace which was visible whilst she worked, she was sent home. She subsequently brought claims against her employer in the Employment Tribunal, referring to the part of the company’s dress code which required all those who wore uniform to wear any jewellery hidden under it. Ms Eweida relied on The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 which outlaw policies that put people at a disadvantage at work because of their religion without there being a legitimate aim for that policy. British Airways argued that there were exceptions to its dress code policy for those whose beliefs actually required them to wear items which could not be concealed (such as turbans), but as Christianity does not actually require the visible wearing of a cross, it argued that the exception did not apply to Ms Eweida’s cross. The company also submitted that the dress code did not prevent Ms Eweida from wearing her cross at all, merely from doing so visibly. If she had agreed to wear it under her uniform, there would have been no disagreement. She had also rejected her employer’s offer of an alternative role in which she would not need to wear uniform and could have worn her cross outside of her clothing. The Court of Appeal accepted British Airways’ arguments and noted that, from a practical point of view, if an individual could be found to have been indirectly discriminated against in this way, employers would have to bear the extremely difficult task of taking into account all of the many ways in which individuals are required to demonstrate their beliefs. Following the hearing, Ms Eweida’s representative indicated that she would appeal the decision to the European Supreme Court stating, ‘we have every hope that the highest court in the land will put Britain’s long tradition of religious tolerance into modern legal practice’. However, given the practical consequences of a Supreme Court judgement in favour of Ms Eweida, employers will be hoping that the former upholds the Court of Appeal’s decision. View all updates For more information on what liquid hr can do to help your business, click here Join Us Now. Click here

Take a few minutes to find out more about how liquid hr can help your business. Click here Top 10 FAQ Key questions asked about the liquid hr service. Learn more Free policies, plans and reports Download your samples here Learn more Don't just take our word for it What our clients say Click here