Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • 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
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • 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
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Case lawEquality, diversity and inclusionReligion

Case of the week: Religious symbols and workers’ rights

by Personnel Today 29 Jan 2008
by Personnel Today 29 Jan 2008

Miss N Eweida v British Airways Plc

FACTS Miss Eweida, a practising Christian, has worked for British Airways (BA) as a member of check-in staff since 1999. She remains employed by BA. As her job is customer-facing, she is required to wear a uniform. From 2004 until February 2007, the uniform policy prohibited the wearing of visible items of jewellery. Mandatory religious apparel was permitted only if it could not be concealed by the uniform and its design was approved by management. Between 20 May and 20 September 2006, Eweida attended work wearing a visible silver cross. When she refused to conceal the cross, she was sent home and remained at home, unpaid, from 20 September 2006 until February 2007, when the uniform policy was amended to allow staff to display a faith or charity symbol.

Eweida brought claims under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 of direct and indirect discrimination, and harassment, as well as a claim for unlawful deduction from wages.

DECISION The tribunal dismissed Eweida’s claims and found there was no direct discrimination. BA would have treated any person displaying a cross or any symbol of faith on a neck chain in the same way, regardless of faith or religious inclination. The complaint of direct discrimination failed because Eweida did not suffer less favourable treatment than a comparator in identical circumstances.

The claim for harassment failed because there was no evidence that BA engaged in unwanted conduct apart from seeking to enforce the contractual uniform policy, and there was no evidence that BA treated Eweida any differently on the grounds of her religion.

BA had applied its standard uniform policy to Eweida, namely that personal jewellery or items, including any item worn for religious reasons, should be concealed by the uniform unless expressly permitted by BA. However, this did not put Christians at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons. Visible display of the cross was not a requirement of the Christian faith, but a personal choice. Her claim of indirect discrimination failed.

The tribunal also rejected the unlawful deductions claim. The duty to wear the uniform was contractual and as Eweida failed to perform the contract in full, BA was not bound to accept part performance and was authorised to refuse to pay.

IMPLICATIONS Although this is only a first instance decision, and not binding on other tribunals, it is consistent with the approach taken by the EAT in Azmi v Kirklees Borough Council.

Cases of indirect discrimination in this area will always rely on specific facts and circumstances. Employers need to be careful to ensure dress code requirements do not negatively impact on members of a particular faith group. If they do, an employer will always need to show that it is trying to achieve a legitimate aim (i.e. that there is a genuine and important reason for its policy) and that the policy is proportionate (i.e. that it is reasonable and necessary and there are no less discriminatory alternatives).

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

It is notable that the tribunal accepted that an employer can refuse to pay an employee who refused to comply with a uniform policy (where it is a contractual requirement). In practice this will usually mean employers are able to deduct pay for time lost while employees go home to change.

Mary Clarke, partner, DLA Piper

Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Applicants ‘not good enough’ for top human resources post says HR chief
next post
Police unrest over pay highlighted by NPIA chief people officer Angela O’Connor

You may also like

One in eight senior NHS managers from black...

1 Jul 2025

Progressive DEI policy is a red line for...

27 Jun 2025

BBC Breakfast bullying and misconduct allegations under investigation

20 Jun 2025

Barts nurse told to remove watermelon image claims...

19 Jun 2025

Finance professionals expect less emphasis on ESG and...

18 Jun 2025

Lack of role models a ‘barrier’ for people...

17 Jun 2025

Pride 2025: why corporate allyship still matters

16 Jun 2025

HR is second ‘most sexist profession’ survey suggests

13 Jun 2025

Racism claims have tripled and ‘Equality Act is...

12 Jun 2025

School’s bid to appeal Kristie Higgs ruling refused...

11 Jun 2025

  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...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 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • 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
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+