British Airways worker wins case over wearing crucifix at work

Death and Taxes

Interesting case that could have ramifications here:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0115/nadia-eweida-british-airways.html

Nadia Eweida was sent home without pay from the airline in 2006 for wearing a necklace with a small silver cross that the company said violated its dress code.
The court ruled that BA's request for Ms Eweida to remove the cross "amounted to an interference with her right to manifest her religion".


Could this have ramifications here bearing in mind a Sikh applicant to the Garda Reserve was refused the right to wear a turban, and Dunnes Stores settled a case with an employee over alleged unfair dismissal after she was told she could not wear a Hijab to work. Both of those cases could be seen as as an interference with the right to manifest the individuals religion.

Opinions?

Drakares

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Opinions?

Absolutely don't care.

davet82

we're not apart of britain

Annasopra

davet82 wrote: »

we're not apart of britain

We have these things called Europe and common law.

davet82

mango salsa wrote: »

We have these things called Europe and common law.

i cant check the link so this was a european court that ruled this?

seamus

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Could this have ramifications here bearing in mind a Sikh applicant to the Garda Reserve was refused the right to wear a turban, and Dunnes Stores settled a case with an employee over alleged unfair dismissal after she was told she could not wear a Hijab to work. Both of those cases could be seen as as an interference with the right to manifest the individuals religion.

Opinions?

Well the primary case here is that the necklace can be worn without having to modify or otherwise change the uniform.

In the case of the Sikh or the Muslim, their chosen garbs would require a deviation from the uniform. In this BA workers' case the cross would fit under the heading of jewellery, so unless BA ban their staff from wearing any jewellery, then there's no good reason to ban her from wearing this jewellery just because it has a religious symbol on it.

Annasopra

davet82 wrote: »

i cant check the link so this was a european court that ruled this?

Yep. European Court of Human Rights

LiamMc

davet82 wrote: »

i cant check the link so this was a european court that ruled this?

No.
European Court of Human Rights

ECHR homepage currently linking ruling
http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/homepage_EN
webpage linking PDF document for decision
}"]http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra-press/pages/search.aspx?i=003-4221189-5014359#{"itemid":["003-4221189-5014359"]}

davet82

mango salsa wrote: »

We have these things called Europe and common law.

mango salsa wrote: »

Yep. European Court of Human Rights

apologies OP

thanks for the info mango


have to agree with seamus and his assessment

Annasopra

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Interesting case that could have ramifications here:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0115/nadia-eweida-british-airways.html

Nadia Eweida was sent home without pay from the airline in 2006 for wearing a necklace with a small silver cross that the company said violated its dress code.
The court ruled that BA's request for Ms Eweida to remove the cross "amounted to an interference with her right to manifest her religion".


Could this have ramifications here bearing in mind a Sikh applicant to the Garda Reserve was refused the right to wear a turban, and Dunnes Stores settled a case with an employee over alleged unfair dismissal after she was told she could not wear a Hijab to work. Both of those cases could be seen as as an interference with the right to manifest the individuals religion.

Opinions?

My interpretation of the RTE news article would be that this ruling would only apply to private companies and not state agencies.

Lollipops23

I was all set to roll my eyes until I heard that other religions are allowed to wear garments/accessories denoting their faith.

Like, go secular or go multi-denominational- you can't be ok with allowing the headscarf but not the small piece of jewellery. It wasn't like she was wearing a hunk of wood or something around her neck.

who the fug

davet82 wrote: »

we're not apart of britain

No, but are part of Europe

Interesting thing is that only one out of the four cases won.

The Nurse lost on health and safety and the other two can't use religion to discriminate against Gays.

So all the Tories are claiming it as a victory but keeping quiet about the other three cases, which are a minefield for them

Lollipops23

who the fug wrote: »

So all the Tories are claiming it as a victory but keeping quiet about the other three cases, which are a minefield for them

I genuinely don't have a problem with yer wan wanting to wear a cross to work-mainly as the headscarf/turban is also permitted.

The others were more hate-filled; refusing to marry a same-sex couple to marry. The air stewardess wasn't hurting anyone.

Death and Taxes

seamus wrote: »

Well the primary case here is that the necklace can be worn without having to modify or otherwise change the uniform. Sorry, but that is not mentioned in the article at all.

In the case of the Sikh or the Muslim, their chosen garbs would require a deviation from the uniform. In this BA workers' case the cross would fit under the heading of jewellery, so unless BA ban their staff from wearing any jewellery, then there's no good reason to ban her from wearing this jewellery just because it has a religious symbol on it.

Not so sure about that, the primary thing is that the ECHR established a "Right to manifest ones religion without interference".

Hobbes

There is nothing in the Christian religion that I am aware of that forces you to wear jewellery.

LiamMc

seamus wrote: »

Well the primary case here is that the necklace can be worn without having to modify or otherwise change the uniform.

In the case of the Sikh or the Muslim, their chosen garbs would require a deviation from the uniform. In this BA workers' case the cross would fit under the heading of jewellery, so unless BA ban their staff from wearing any jewellery, then there's no good reason to ban her from wearing this jewellery just because it has a religious symbol on it.

That's a deliberate misreading of the Judgement. The Judgement doesn't mention Jewellery/Bijoux. And the ruling mentions "corporate image", not uniform.

part of ruling of ECHR Ewieda and Others v. United Kingdom.
"In Ms Eweida’s case, the Court held that on one side of the scales was Ms Eweida’s desire to manifest her religious belief. On the other side of the scales was the employer’s wish to project a certain corporate image. While this aim was undoubtedly legitimate, the domestic courts accorded it too much weight."

hooradiation

Hobbes wrote: »

There is nothing in the Christian religion that I am aware of that forces you to wear jewellery.

And as a wise man once said, if Jesus does ever come back, do you think he's going to ever want to see another cross?

Fratton Fred

surprised the case got this far. BA have been stupid.

seamus

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Not so sure about that, the primary thing is that the ECHR established a "Right to manifest ones religion without interference".

No, what I said is not mentioned in the article at all, but it's fairly clear that's what it boils down to.
If the woman was taking a case that BA wouldn't allow her to wear a Burkha, I imagine the ruling would have turned out much differently.

As Liam Mc quotes, the court decided there had to be a balance between the corporate image and the individual's right to free expression.

So even though it mentioned the "Right to manifest ones religion without interference", it's fairly clear from the judgement that there are limits to this right and it's not carte blanch for any employee to wear whatever they like under the heading of religious freedom. In this case, the fact that the necklace would have limited impact on the corporate image while allowing the woman her freedom of expression meant that the right balance was to allow her to wear it and that banning her from wearing was giving too much weight to the corporate image.

I mention it being jewellery because I imagine that was one of the woman's arguments - if other jewellery is OK, then banning religious jewellery is nothing more than restricting her "Right to manifest ones religion without interference".

im invisible

I thought it was on health and safety grounds that she wasn't allowed wear it, something like a passenger could grab it and choke her with it?

Edit, she had been allowed wear it under her uniform, or was given the option of wearing a lapel pin crucifix.. From what i remember

LiamMc

Fratton Fred wrote: »

surprised the case got this far. BA have been stupid.

Statesman


Action Negotiator/Trouble-shooter


a bit gormless

seamus

im invisible wrote: »

I thought it was on health and safety grounds that she wasn't allowed wear it, something like a passenger could grab it and choke her with it?

No, that was the nurse who took a similar case.

She lost.

BizzyC

A Sihk doesn't have to wear a turbin specifically, they just need to keep their head covered.

They could wear a garda uniform hat to conform with their religion.

gobnaitolunacy

Unless it was a fecking foot long timber thing hanging around her neck I don't see the big deal.

Nodin

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

Unless it was a fecking foot long timber thing hanging around her neck I don't see the big deal.

...indeed. Stupid that this has to be dragged before a court. Theres enough work for lawyers as it is.

Grayson

Hobbes wrote: »

There is nothing in the Christian religion that I am aware of that forces you to wear jewellery.

That's what'd make me think she shouldn't.

Catholics should be allowed to have ash on their heads on ash wednesday beacuse it's part of their religion, but if that same catholic wanted to wear a cruxifix, I'd say no because it's not a nessecary part of their religion.

If a muslim belonged to a particular sect that demanded a hijab, they should be allowed one (assuming it doesn't stop them from doing the job). But if they belonged to a sect that didn't, well feck em, they're just being annoying.

Same goes for sikh's, collander wearers etc...

Employers should make efforts to accomodate people of different races/genders/religions etc... Unless they're scientologists. **** them.

Grayson

BizzyC wrote: »

A Sihk doesn't have to wear a turbin specifically, they just need to keep their head covered.

They could wear a garda uniform hat to conform with their religion.

Actually they have to wear the turban and cannot wear hats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dastar

A man born into a Sikh Family should only wear a turban. For sikhs the wearing of caps is prohibited. It is written in SGGS "Hoye Sikh Sirr Topi Dhare Saat Janam Kushti Hoye Mare" sikhs who wear hats, or caps have to be born 7 times as korris. Still many sikhs wear caps just for fashion despite of knowing this fact which is considered wrong by many Orthodox Sikhs.

Rothmans

seamus wrote: »

No, what I said is not mentioned in the article at all, but it's fairly clear that's what it boils down to.
If the woman was taking a case that BA wouldn't allow her to wear a Burkha, I imagine the ruling would have turned out much differently.

As Liam Mc quotes, the court decided there had to be a balance between the corporate image and the individual's right to free expression.

So even though it mentioned the "Right to manifest ones religion without interference", it's fairly clear from the judgement that there are limits to this right and it's not carte blanch for any employee to wear whatever they like under the heading of religious freedom. In this case, the fact that the necklace would have limited impact on the corporate image while allowing the woman her freedom of expression meant that the right balance was to allow her to wear it and that banning her from wearing was giving too much weight to the corporate image.

I mention it being jewellery because I imagine that was one of the woman's arguments - if other jewellery is OK, then banning religious jewellery is nothing more than restricting her "Right to manifest ones religion without interference".

I think you are exactly right.
By WileyCoyote's logic, a pastafarian should be permitted to wear a pasta strainer on his head at work, just as a sihk would wear a turban, or a Muslim would wear a burkha etc.

Rothmans

Grayson wrote: »

That's what'd make me think she shouldn't.

Catholics should be allowed to have ash on their heads on ash wednesday beacuse it's part of their religion, but if that same catholic wanted to wear a cruxifix, I'd say no because it's not a nessecary part of their religion.

If a muslim belonged to a particular sect that demanded a hijab, they should be allowed one (assuming it doesn't stop them from doing the job). But if they belonged to a sect that didn't, well feck em, they're just being annoying.

Same goes for sikh's, collander wearers etc...

Employers should make efforts to accomodate people of different races/genders/religions etc... Unless they're scientologists. **** them.

So if I was a member of the Westboro Baptist Church I shoul be allowed to wear hateful homophobic, anti-semitic shirts etc because it is the cornerstone of my Christian 'sect'?

Amirani

Grayson wrote: »

Employers should make efforts to accomodate people of different races/genders/religions etc... Unless they're scientologists. **** them.

Who gives you the right to decide that scientologists are less deserving of religious accomodation than other religions? Who gives anyone that right? It's either be accepting of all religions or none.

blackwhite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

surprised the case got this far. BA have been stupid.

The dispute originally happened in 2006.

BA changed their internal rules in 2007 to allow for the wearing of crucifixes (and other religious jewellery), and the woman in question has been working for them wearing a crucifix since. The BBC article gives a lot more detail than the RTE one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21025332

The case proceeded for this long not because of BA, but because the woman wanted a declaration from a court that would protect her right to wear a crucifix if BA ever decided to change their policy again.

My name is URL

Eweida said: “I’m very happy and very pleased that Christian rights have been vindicated in the UK and Europe.

Christian rights?... well at least she has everyone's best interests at heart and not just her own.

Thomas20

My name is URL wrote: »

Christian rights?... well at least she has everyone's best interests at heart and not just her own.

Jesus it's shocking that Christians should fight for their rights, in Europe no less.
Not like any group of people have done that before, you know gays, blacks, how selfish of them!

CreepingDeath

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Could this have ramifications here bearing in mind a Sikh applicant to the Garda Reserve was refused the right to wear a turban

A small piece of discrete jewelry isn't too bad, sounds like overkill in this case.

But the idea of a "uniform", and the clue is in the name, is that everyone looks the same and will be treated the same.

If you want to join a group, eg. the guards, then you have to change for the group, the group shouldn't have to change for you.

anncoates

It will serve BA right if there is a sudden vampire outbreak in any of their workplaces.

DeepSleeper

A slightly related story...

I flew to the USA with Delta about 10 days ago and after we landed the flight attendant thanked us for flying Delta, asked us to remain in our seats until the aircraft came to a complete stop etc etc and then thanked her colleagues in the cabin crew and thanked flight attendant Jaycee in particular....

I thought this was odd - was it Jaycee's birthday? was Jaycee retiring that day? Then I realised the Jaycee was probably JC... I think she thanked Jesus Christ for his assistance on the flight...

That's odd if you ask me, partly because of the use of the initials... If your faith is so strong that you feel the need to thank Jesus for getting you from A to B safely, then why not say His name instead of using the initials? Because of a fear of a reprimand from Delta? I've no idea, but I think the initials JC are more commonly used in the USA anyway, so maybe that explains it.

BizzyC

Grayson wrote: »

Actually they have to wear the turban and cannot wear hats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dastar

Interesting.
I know a few that wear caps, so I thought it was accepted.

pcardin

DeepSleeper wrote: »

A slightly related story...

I flew to the USA with Delta about 10 days ago and after we landed the flight attendant thanked us for flying Delta, asked us to remain in our seats until the aircraft came to a complete stop etc etc and then thanked her colleagues in the cabin crew and thanked flight attendant Jaycee in particular....

I thought this was odd - was it Jaycee's birthday? was Jaycee retiring that day? Then I realised the Jaycee was probably JC... I think she thanked Jesus Christ for his assistance on the flight...

That's odd if you ask me, partly because of the use of the initials... If your faith is so strong that you feel the need to thank Jesus for getting you from A to B safely, then why not say His name instead of using the initials? Because of a fear of a reprimand from Delta? I've no idea, but I think the initials JC are more commonly used in the USA anyway, so maybe that explains it.

or maybe she didn't want to hurt anyones feelings. If she would say thanks to Jesus Christ then The Believers of Saint German Sausage or any other religion would be shouting all over the place and sue Delta for not saying a particular thanks to their God. I dunno. Maybe JC was just a John Conroy from Ballymun.

My name is URL

Thomas20 wrote: »

Jesus it's shocking that Christians should fight for their rights, in Europe no less.
Not like any group of people have done that before, you know gays, blacks, how selfish of them!

I just find it mildly ironic that she, and the various Christian groups supporting her, fought so ardently for her 'rights' while they vocally oppose other people's rights to live as they choose.

That's why I commented on her statement regarding 'Christian rights'

Grayson

NiallSparky wrote: »

Who gives you the right to decide that scientologists are less deserving of religious accomodation than other religions? Who gives anyone that right? It's either be accepting of all religions or none.

Cos they are complete dicks. The rest are partial dicks. Except for those westboro guys, they're cnuts.

And being accepting of religion does not mean that you have to tolerate any old bollox.

I'll tolerate the mainstream ones so long as they don't get too intense. At least they have a bit of pedigree.
But all those jonny come lately religions saying we have invisible aliens stuck to us, but if you give us $$$$ we'll sort you out, feck em.

Grayson

BizzyC wrote: »

Interesting.
I know a few that wear caps, so I thought it was accepted.

Embarrassingly, I think I know this because of a fools and horses episode.

Tigger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17lNs9EFOYI

.

Manic Moran

seamus wrote: »

In the case of the Sikh or the Muslim, their chosen garbs would require a deviation from the uniform.

There may also be a practical side of things. Gardai can be expected to get into scuffles from time to time, if the turban (and more specifically, the large amount of hair under it) is considered to be a vulnerability by the Gardai, and thus the short hair may as much be a practical as visual requirement. That may, however, be not a factor in Ireland, depending on what the regulations are for female Gardai.

Similar with beards. Not only can they make a nice grab-handle in the case of long beards, even short ones can also interfere with the seal on a gas mask. Inconvenient, at best, when tear gas is being lobbed around. As I understand it, there are precisely three Sikh soldiers in the US Army who have been permitted to retain their Dastaars and beards: They had to demonstrate that their helmet and mask could be worn effectively over their heads and faces before the uniform waiver was authorised.

NTM

crazygeryy

i don'tknow what's more ridiculous British airways for giving a **** or the woman for taking the case to court.

Show Time

Once the cabin ladies are wearing short skirts and low cut tops who gives a f**k what else they wear with it.

AudreyHepburn

The right outcome in my opinion - it was a small piece of jewellery doing no more harm than a head scarf.

I would have no wish to live in a world I could lose my job merely because I chose to wear a small item of clothing or decoration that meant something to me.

Ghost Buster

Thomas20 wrote: »

Jesus it's shocking that Christians should fight for their rights, in Europe no less.
Not like any group of people have done that before, you know gays, blacks, how selfish of them!

I think you'll find that its Christians (and other religious) who take discriminate against gays and blacks.

philologos

OP: you can read the ruling on the ECHR. The reason in the BA case was because they already allowed turbans and hijab but not a crucifix, and they were inconsistent in their position.

I think the ruling on Lilian Ladelle and the Borough of Islington was the most interesting insofar as two of the seven disagreed on it.

Jester252

Manic Moran wrote: »

There may also be a practical side of things. Gardai can be expected to get into scuffles from time to time, if the turban (and more specifically, the large amount of hair under it) is considered to be a vulnerability by the Gardai, and thus the short hair may as much be a practical as visual requirement. That may, however, be not a factor in Ireland, depending on what the regulations are for female Gardai.

Similar with beards. Not only can they make a nice grab-handle in the case of long beards, even short ones can also interfere with the seal on a gas mask. Inconvenient, at best, when tear gas is being lobbed around. As I understand it, there are precisely three Sikh soldiers in the US Army who have been permitted to retain their Dastaars and beards: They had to demonstrate that their helmet and mask could be worn effectively over their heads and faces before the uniform waiver was authorised.

NTM

Sikh cops in the UK have a turbine designed simlar to the standard bobby hats.

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4034/4530516215_b26ce58b16_z.jpg

I haven't heard any problems due to it and don't see why the guards can do this over here

philologos

Ghost Buster wrote: »

I think you'll find that its Christians (and other religious) who take discriminate against gays and blacks.

Many Christians are gay and black. What's your point exactly?

Grayson

philologos wrote: »

Many Christians are gay and black. What's your point exactly?

Christians don't particularly like gay people.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/02/gay-masses-soho-abolished

they also seem to have problems with gays who aren't christian. Things like trying to stop them marrying.
And they don't particularly like women either.

So I think his point was that it's a bit rich for a white christian to say they're being discriminated against when they are in the majority and actively campaign against rights for minority groups. Human Rights are Human Rights, either they apply to everyone or they're pointless.