people standing in a row Home | News & events | Legal updates | Court of Appeal rules in BA crucifix case

Court of Appeal rules in BA crucifix case

12 February 2010

The Court of Appeal has handed down judgement in the case of a British Airways worker who claimed her employer's uniform policy discriminated against Christians.

In Eweida v British Airways the Court of Appeal dismissed Ms Eweida’s appeal against an earlier ruling by the Employment Appeal Tribunal that a uniform policy prohibiting the wearing of any visible adornment around the neck was not indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of religious belief.

Indirect discrimination occurs when a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) is applied to all, but puts people in a particular group at a disadvantage when compared with others. The person making the claim must have suffered that disadvantage.
 
Ms Eweida argued that the uniform policy was indirectly discriminatory and that as a devout, practising Christian she had suffered disadvantage by not being allowed to display a visible cross.  

However, the tribunal concluded that she had failed to show that Christians as a group had been placed at a disadvantage by the uniform policy as she had herself described the wearing of a cross as a personal choice rather than as a religious requirement.

The Court of Appeal was clear that the disadvantage caused by the PCP (in this case the uniform policy) had to be shown to apply to a group (albeit that this could be small) rather than to just one individual.

Lord Justice Sedley, giving the leading judgement, went on that even if indirect discrimination had been shown it would have been lawful because it would have been justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The Court also rejected arguments based on Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which grants the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

The ECHR had previously said: “Article 9 does not protect every act motivated or inspired by a religion or belief...in exercising his freedom to manifest his religion, an individual may need to take his specific situation into account.”

Finally, the Court of Appeal suggested that in the case of PCPs which allegedly conflict with employees’ beliefs but which may not be shared by other members of the workforce, or may even be opposed by them, it was ‘not unthinkable that a blanket ban may sometimes be the only fair solution’.
 
BA actually changed its uniform policy in 2007 to allow staff to display a faith or charity symbol on their uniforms. Ms Eweida, whose case was supported by human rights charity Liberty, still works for BA.

© Shoosmiths. This page is for general information: it is not legal advice. Please read our full terms and conditions for details of the disclaimers and exclusions which apply.

Get in touch

Katy Meves

Professional Support Lawyer
T: 03700 86 6971
I: +44 (0)1489 61 6971
E: katy.meves@shoosmiths.co.uk