jewellery policy was not religious discrimination
British Airways Plc (BA) has succeeded in the Court of Appeal in
defending its previous jewellery policy against an employee who
claimed it amounted to discrimination under the Employment Equality
(Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. BA had a policy that
jewellery should not be visible, although items which were a
mandatory religious requirement could be permitted by management.
Ms Eweida, a practising Christian, was a member of check-in staff
who refused to conceal a silver cross necklace she wore. She was
sent home without pay, and brought a number of claims against BA.
Her claims failed, and although BA had by then changed its policy
resulting in Ms Eweida returning to work, she appealed on the issue
of indirect discrimination under the Regulations.
Indirect discrimination occurs where there is
a provision, criterion, or practice (PCP) applied to all employees
which puts or would put persons who share the claimant's religion
or belief at a disadvantage compared to others. The Employment
Tribunal had found that the disadvantage was suffered by Ms Eweida
and her alone. She provided no evidence that it was a requirement
of the Christian faith or that others were similarly disadvantaged.
The Court of Appeal confirmed that there must be evidence of real
group disadvantage (even if it is a small group): not a
hypothetical group, and not one lone individual. Had Ms Eweida
succeeded in showing discrimination on the basis of her
disadvantage alone, the Court would also have been inclined to
accept BA's justification defence, namely that the policy was a
proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
<<back to bulletin main
menu
