At an airline check-in desk, a small silver cross became a question of corporate image. On a hospital ward, a cross on a chain raised concerns about what could happen if a patient grabbed it. Both women believed wearing the cross visibly was an expression of their faith. The European Court of Human Rights reached different conclusions about their cases. The object was much the same. The evidence around it was not.
The check-in desk and the ward
Nadia Eweida worked for British Airways. She wanted to wear her cross visibly with her uniform. When the European Court of Human Rights examined her case in 2013, it accepted that the airline had a legitimate interest in its image. But the small cross was discreet, and the evidence did not show that it harmed that image. British Airways later changed its policy. The Court found that the UK had failed to protect Ms Eweida’s right to manifest her religion under Article 9.
Shirley Chaplin was a nurse. Her managers identified clinical safety concerns about a necklace, including the risk that a patient could pull it. The Court gave substantial weight to the hospital’s judgment about its ward. It found no Article 9 violation in her case. There were four applicants in the judgment. Only Ms Eweida succeeded.
A better question to ask about a uniform rule
If a similar issue arises at work, describe the particular item, the duties you perform and why wearing it matters to you. Ask the employer to identify the aim of the rule. If the concern is safety, which task creates the risk, and could a different fastening or way of wearing the item address it? A practical proposal gives both sides something more useful to consider than a general argument about uniforms.
Keep the policy, your request and the written response. You can ask for a meeting or trade union support without surrendering the right to seek advice. An internal process does not automatically extend tribunal time limits. A UK adviser can help distinguish a workplace discrimination issue from a Convention application against a state.
Read Eweida and Others v United Kingdom, applications 48420/10 and others.
Read Acas on religion or belief discrimination or discuss a workplace dress rule in a consultation.
Hear the arguments in Strasbourg
European Court of Human Rights · Public hearing · 4 September 2012
Compare the reasons given for the airline’s uniform policy with the evidence about safety on a hospital ward. This is the hearing of the four joined applications. The court delivered its judgment on 15 January 2013.
