Employment Law

The Wearing of Religious Symbols at Work – Update

A British Airways (BA) employee, who claimed that she was the victim of religious discrimination because she was not allowed to wear a silver crucifix at work if the necklace was visible, has lost her appeal at the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

When the issue was first raised, BA’s uniform policy stated that personal jewellery and items worn for religious reasons could only be worn underneath the uniform. Where this was not practical, an item of religious apparel could be worn, provided management approval was obtained. Nadia Eweida, a practising Christian, was suspended after she refused to conceal her cross when asked to do so as she regarded it as an important visible expression of her faith. Other members of staff were allowed to wear headscarves or turbans and she wanted to display a symbol of her faith.

Ms Eweida was reinstated after BA changed its uniform policy to allow staff to display a symbol of their faith. However, she was of the view that the airline had been guilty of having ‘rules for one minority group but not the other’ and brought a claim for direct and indirect discrimination and harassment, under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, as well as a claim for unlawful deduction of wages.

Ms Eweida’s claim of direct discrimination failed because the Employment Tribunal (ET) ruled that BA would have treated any employee wearing a necklace displaying a symbol of their faith in the same way. Miss Eweida had not been treated less favourably than any other employee in the same circumstances. The claim of indirect discrimination failed because BA had applied its standard uniform policy when asking her to remove the cross and this did not put Christians at a particular disadvantage compared with any other group.

As regards the harassment claim, The ET found that there was no evidence of unwanted conduct on the part of BA. The company had sought to enforce its uniform policy and there was no evidence that Miss Eweida had been treated differently because of her religious beliefs.

In considering the claim for unlawful deduction from wages, the ET held that Miss Eweida was contractually obliged to abide by BA’s uniform policy. As she had failed to perform the contract in full, BA was within its rights to refuse to pay her.

Ms Eweida appealed against the finding that she had not been the victim of indirect discrimination. The EAT dismissed her claim because wearing a cross was not a mandatory requirement of her religion.

For advice on drawing up a dress code policy that does not fall foul of discrimination law, contact: