Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Equality, diversity and inclusionReligious discrimination

BA Christian crucifix case ‘not worth enormous legal fees’, lawyer warns

by Louisa Peacock 19 Jan 2010
by Louisa Peacock 19 Jan 2010

The British Airways (BA) crucifix case which reached the Court of Appeal today is “not worth the legal fees incurred”, and serves as a stark reminder to employers to build discretion into workplace dress codes, an employment lawyer has warned.


Darren Sherborne, head of employment and partner at Rickerbys law firm, told Personnel Today the case – whereby devout Christian Nadia Eweida is claiming BA discriminated against her when she refused to remove her cross necklace at work – highlights employers’ ability to “lose track of what’s important”.


He urged HR professionals to allow flexibility in their uniform policies to prevent religious cases of this nature reaching court.


Eweida, who had been a check-in worker at the airline for seven years, was suspended in 2006 after she refused to stop wearing the Christian symbol.


She claims the suspension was discriminatory, especially since the airline allows Sikh employees to wear traditional iron bangles, and Muslim workers are permitted to wear head scarves.


In 2007, BA changed its uniform policy, which saw Eweida return to work.


Her case was rejected by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in 2008, but Eweida is appealing to the Court of Appeal today.


Sherborne told the magazine: “This case highlights our ability as a profession to lose track of what’s important, and what staff come to work for. If the manager in question had been asked to stand back and remind themselves as to the reason for being in business, and the aim of being in business, the issue of the employee displaying a religious symbol would not be one worthy of the legal fees incurred.”


The EAT found that the previous BA dress code did not disadvantage a particular group.


However, the case is important because it will decide what degree of protection is available to employees who have religious beliefs that are not necessarily widely shared by others of that faith.


Sherborne said: “If there had been a group who were disadvantaged, the employer could still successfully defend the claim by showing that the code was justified in any event. It is hard to see in this case however, how they would justify the code bearing in mind that the employer subsequently changed the code to allow Christian symbols.”


Eweida claims BA should admit its previous dress code policy was unlawful and pay her about £120,000 in damages and lost wages.


A BA spokeswoman said Eweida had been allowed to wear her cross for the past three years.


She said: “Her allegations that British Airways discriminated against her have been rejected by two tribunals. We are not prepared to admit that we have discriminated against Eweida when we have not done so.


“We will therefore defend our position before the Court of Appeal.”


The case continues.

Avatar
Louisa Peacock

previous post
Equality Bill guidance documents put out to consultation
next post
Gender pay gap reporters to escape EHRC investigation for two years

You may also like

Coalition of firms sets out to boost diversity...

21 Sep 2023

Gender pay gap could take 63 years to...

13 Sep 2023

Interview dress codes: Black candidates fear discrimination

5 Sep 2023

Police forces ‘more likely to select white applicants’

31 Aug 2023

Probation worker receives settlement after monkey chants

24 Aug 2023

New GMC guide spells out zero tolerance of...

23 Aug 2023

Fewer females working in UK tech sector than...

17 Aug 2023

‘Future-focused’ sectors risk excluding women on low incomes

9 Aug 2023

Employers not highlighting commitment to diverse recruitment

9 Aug 2023

Police Race Action Plan ‘follows structures that enable...

8 Aug 2023

  • Discover the value of CIPD accreditation PROMOTED | See how the CIPD can increase your earning potential...Read more
  • What does it mean to be an HR professional in 2024? (survey) PROMOTED | The world of HR is changing rapidly...Read more
  • The Contractor Management Mastery Pack: Everything you need to manage and pay global contractors PROMOTED | Answers to cross-border...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2023

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2023 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+