UPDATED - BA worker loses cross ban appeal (From Richmond and Twickenham Times)

News RSS Feed

UPDATED - BA worker Nadia Eweida loses cross ban appeal

10:23am Friday 12th February 2010 in News By Chris Wickham

Cross ban: BA worker Nadia Eweida has lost her Court of Appeal case

A devout Christian who claimed she had been discriminated against when she was not allowed to wear a cross at work has lost her appeal against an employment tribunal decision.

Nadia Eweida, from Strawberry Hill, was told in 2006 she could not wear the Christian symbol around her neck while working at Heathrow as a check-in operator for British Airways (BA).

Ms Eweida, of Strawberry Hill Close, was sent home when she refused to remove the cross on September 20, 2006, and was off work without pay until February 2007.

She lost an employment tribunal and a subsequent employment appeal tribunal (EAT) and was today told by a trio of appeal judges - Lord Justice Sedley, Lord Justice Carnworth and Lady Justice Smith - her appeal against the decision by the EAT in November 2008 had been dismissed.

Ms Eweida appealed on the basis the EAT erred in stating BA did not religiously discriminate against her indirectly and her counsel, Karon Monaghan, said the tribunal was wrong to conclude any discrimination must disadvantage Christians in general.

Ms Monaghan told the court Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and employment equality regulations respected individual religious beliefs and practices and did not require proof Christians as a whole would wish to wear a cross visibly.

BA cross-appealed the judgement of the EAT, which said that had it found discrimination against Ms Eweida it would not have been justified, and Lord Justice Sedley, giving the judgement, said even if Ms Monaghan had proved indirect discrimination BA’s cross-appeal would have defeated it.

He added: “This case had perhaps illustrated some of the problems which can arise when an individual (or equally a group) asserts that a provision, criterion or practice adopted by an employer conflicts with the beliefs which they hold but which may not only not be shared but may be opposed by others in the workforce.

Related links

“It is not unthinkable that a blanket ban may sometimes be the only fair solution.”

Lord Justice Sedley, in the judgement, said the evidence offered by Ms Eweida’s team failed a series of “tests” on whether she was indirectly discriminated against and Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights did not protect every act motivated or inspired by a religion or belief.

He endorsed the EAT’s judgement that “in order for indirect discrimination to be established, it must be possible to make some general statements which would be true about a religious group such that an employer ought reasonably to be able to appreciate that any particular provision may have a disparate adverse impact on the group”.

The judges ruled Ms Eweida would have to pay BA’s costs and refused permission to take the case to the supreme court.

A BA spokesman said: “British Airways is very satisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal which once again confirmed British Airways has acted properly in relation to Ms Eweida.”

Comments(19)

Julie Hill says...
11:55am Fri 12 Feb 10

So know it's official, in the United Kingdom a crucifix is considered an item of jewellery.

And I thought this was a Christian Country.....?