A devout Christian employee has recently lost her high profile challenge in the Court of Appeal against BA's uniform policy. Ms Eweida claimed the policy was discriminatory as it required her to remove or conceal a visible cross worn on a necklace at work.
The facts were that Miss Eweida was not allowed to wear the Christian symbol around her neck while working at Heathrow Airport as a check-in-operator. In September 2006, she was sent home after wearing her cross visibly at work, despite being warned not to do so, and was off work without pay until February 2007. She argued that while Muslims and Sikhs were allowed to wear hijab headdresses and religious kara bangles respectively, as a Christian she had been asked to remove her cross or hide it from sight.
This case caused BA much negative publicity and it subsequently changed its uniform policy. Nevertheless, Miss Eweida went onto to battle her claim up to the Court of Appeal, where it eventually failed. This was on the basis that she was not a victim of indirect religious discrimination.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal found in an earlier decision that BA's uniform policy did not generally put Christians at a disadvantage. The wearing of a visible cross, although motivated by her faith, was a personal decision by Miss Eweida and not a requirement of Christian faith or scripture. She did not satisfy the necessary degree of group disadvantage to get her claim off the ground. The Court of Appeal then went on to reject Miss Eweida's point that one
individual person could be the subject of indirect discrimination. This would put an impossible burden on employers to anticipate and provide for variations of beliefs in society at large. The Court upheld that for a finding of discrimination, some identifiable section of a workforce, quite possibly a small one, must be shown to suffer a particular disadvantage which the person claiming also shares.
Although Miss Eweida did not succeed in her claim, this case highlights the care that employers must take to ensure that dress codes do not negatively affect a particular faith group.
So, if you have a uniform policy, it must be considered carefully. Think about if it disadvantages a group of people holding a particular faith. If there is a request to circumvent a uniform policy for religious reasons then it should be treated sensitively and respectfully. There should be consultation with the employees with the view of reaching a satisfactory conclusion. If a uniform policy cannot be varied, despite a religiously motivated request, then this should be justified by a genuine and important reason with the potentially discriminatory impact of the policy having been assessed.
If this has raised issues for you or you would like to discuss any of the points covered, then please do get in touch.
Follow us on Twitter
