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+

Employment lawHR practiceCase lawDress codes

Dress code: Eweida v British Airways plc – Tribunal

by Personnel Today 15 May 2008
by Personnel Today 15 May 2008

Miss Eweida claimed that British Airways (BA) refusal to let her wear a small cross with her uniform was religious discrimination. Although the case caused BA much negative publicity, the tribunal actually dismissed the claim.

BA’s uniform policy was strict and allowed only mandatory religious items that could not be covered up by the uniform, and that management had approved. Requests for approval were assessed on their merits and pending an outcome the member of staff concerned was required to observe the policy as it stood. The policy made some obvious allowances, for example for turbans, which had to be of a specified colour.

Policy

Following the introduction of a new uniform policy in 2004, allowing open-necked shirts, Eweida’s cross became visible, in breach of the policy. However, she refused to remove the cross, so BA sent her home, in line with the policy.

The tribunal held that BA’s policy did not directly discriminate against Eweida on religious grounds because anyone wearing such a symbol, or indeed jewellery of any kind, would have been treated in the same way regardless of their religion.

There was an exception for mandatory religious items which could not be concealed but Eweida’s case did not fall into this category. The policy did not put her at more of a disadvantage than someone of a different or of no faith. The tribunal also said that the policy did not indirectly discriminate against Christians as it did not put Christians at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons. The policy did not create a barrier for Christians to work at BA.

Having said that, Eweida was eventually allowed to wear her cross for work, because BA reviewed its policy, which it had always maintained was subject to ongoing review, before the hearing.

Key points



  • Refusing to allow an employee to wear a cross at work was not discriminatory on grounds of religion and belief, where the strict uniform policy treated comparable employees of different faiths in the same way.
  • The evidence showed that BA operated a policy which did permit employees to challenge it, and each request was assessed on its merits.
  • Having a uniform policy is a legitimate business aim but its requirements must be proportionate to that business aim.

What you should do



  • If you do have a uniform policy, enforce it consistently.
  • Have a process by which the policy can be updated and stick to it.
  • Analyse the discriminatory impact of the policy to ensure that it is fair.

Personnel Today
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
Interview with… Pam Farmer, diversity manager
next post
Disability Discrimination: McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College – Court of Appeal

You may also like

What does it mean to be an HR...

22 Sep 2023

AI in employment: the pitfalls and laws on...

21 Sep 2023

CIPD publishes manifesto for good work

20 Sep 2023

Right to predictable working hours receives Royal Assent

19 Sep 2023

Sultry September raises dress code dilemmas

8 Sep 2023

Lloyds of London boss urges greater return to...

7 Sep 2023

Personnel Today Awards 2023 shortlist: Employment Law Firm...

7 Sep 2023

Interview dress codes: Black candidates fear discrimination

5 Sep 2023

AI taskforce launched to address gaps in law

4 Sep 2023

Strikes Act consultation aims to establish minimum service...

25 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+