EMPLOYER'S NO VISIBLE JEWELLERY POLICY NOT DISCRIMINATORY.

30/03/2010

Nadia Eweida is a Christian who works at a check-in desk for British Airways (“BA”). BA’s uniform policy originally prohibited the wearing of any visible item around the neck, such as a necklace or chain. The only exceptions were religious items that were a 'mandatory scriptural requirement' and could not be hidden from view.

In September 2006, Eweida attended work wearing a silver cross on a chain that was not concealed. She refused to cover it and was sent home before rejecting an offer of a new position with no uniform. She remained off work until BA introduced a revised uniform policy the following year which allowed their staff to display a faith or charity symbol such as a cross.

Despite this, Eweida pursued claims of both direct and indirect discrimination in the Employment Tribunal on the grounds that the original uniform policy discriminated against her as a Christian.  Her claims were rejected after the Tribunal heard evidence from practising Christians that displaying a cross was not a requirement of the faith. However, the Tribunal ruled that had it found BA's policy to be indirectly discriminatory, it could not be justified. Eweida appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”), which upheld both of the Tribunal's findings. Eweida then appealed to the Court of Appeal, and BA appealed against the justification finding by both the Tribunal and the EAT.

Eweida's argument before the Court was that indirect discrimination can be established if just one person's manifestation of their religious belief is affected by a policy. However, the Court held that the Religion or Belief Regulations were clearly intended to address discrimination of a group. In this case there was no evidence that anyone else was similarly disadvantaged by the uniform policy or that Eweida's objection to it was anything other than a personal one, rather than one based on her faith. The Court also noted the reference to 'persons' in the Regulations made it clear that Parliament did not intend the Regulations to cover indirect discrimination against just one individual. Finally, the Court upheld BA's appeal. It was ruled that had they found BA's uniform policy to be indirectly discriminatory, they would have found that BA could justify their policy as it affected only one employee.

This decision assists employers facing challenges to their uniform policies by employees who argue indirect discrimination on the grounds of religion. It confirms that employers do not have to adapt their policies to allow employees to wear any item associated with their religion, where it is the individual employee's personal choice, rather than an item required by their religion. Notwithstanding this, although Eweida lost her claim each time, the publicity surrounding the case led to BA changing their uniform policy to allow her to visibly wear her cross.

For advice on Employment Law, contact John Buchanan on 0800 124 4012.