British Airways worker wins case over wearing crucifix at work

Death and Taxes · 15-01-2013 01:17PM #1

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 · 15-01-2013 01:20PM

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Opinions?

Absolutely don't care.

davet82 · 15-01-2013 01:21PM

we're not apart of britain

Annasopra · 15-01-2013 01:22PM

davet82 wrote: »

we're not apart of britain

We have these things called Europe and common law.

davet82 · 15-01-2013 01:23PM

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 · 15-01-2013 01:25PM

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 · 15-01-2013 01:26PM

davet82 wrote: »

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

Yep. European Court of Human Rights

LiamMc · 15-01-2013 01:29PM

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 · 15-01-2013 01:29PM

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 · 15-01-2013 01:30PM

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 · 15-01-2013 01:30PM

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 · 15-01-2013 01:30PM

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 · 15-01-2013 01:35PM

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 · 15-01-2013 01:38PM

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 · 15-01-2013 01:42PM

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

LiamMc · 15-01-2013 01:45PM

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 · 15-01-2013 01:47PM

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 · 15-01-2013 01:52PM

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

seamus · 15-01-2013 01:59PM

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 · 15-01-2013 02:01PM

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 · 15-01-2013 02:01PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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

Statesman

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcThcXIK02y8MqvTl32Z7XT8B5o3yNk98-W1u8wjAlMrbVot9JC8vA

Action Negotiator/Trouble-shooter

a bit gormless

seamus · 15-01-2013 02:03PM

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 · 15-01-2013 02:44PM

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 · 15-01-2013 02:46PM

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

Nodin · 15-01-2013 03:25PM

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 · 15-01-2013 03:32PM

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 · 15-01-2013 03:35PM

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 · 15-01-2013 03:54PM

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 · 15-01-2013 03:57PM

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 · 15-01-2013 04:06PM

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 · 15-01-2013 04:20PM

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.

British Airways worker wins case over wearing crucifix at work

Comments