Eweida v United Kingdom | |
---|---|
Court | European Court of Human Rights |
Citation(s) | [2013] ECHR 37 |
Case history | |
Prior action(s) | Eweida v British Airways Plc, [2008] UKEAT 0123_08_2011 Eweida v British Airways Plc, [2010] EWCA Civ 80 (CA), [2010] IRLR 322 Eweida v United Kingdom [2011] ECHR 738 (preliminary questions) |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | David Thór Björgvinsson (President), Nicolas Bratza, Lech Garlicki, Päivi Hirvelä, Zdravka Kalaydjieva, Nebojša Vučinić, Vincent A. De Gaetano |
Keywords | |
Indirect discrimination, religion, clothing policy |
Eweida v United Kingdom [2013] ECHR 37 is a UK labour law decision of the European Court of Human Rights, concerning the duty of the government of the United Kingdom to protect the religious rights of individuals under the European Convention on Human Rights. [1] The European Court found that the British government had failed to protect the complainant's right to manifest her religion, in breach of Article 9 of the European Convention. For failing to protect her rights, the British government was found liable to pay non-pecuniary damages of €2,000, along with a costs award of €30,000.
The case arose from a dispute between British Airways (BA) and one of its employees, Nadia Eweida, over its uniform policy, which required that religious jewellery had to be worn out of sight, under one's clothing. Eweida visibly wore a necklace with a religious symbol, a small cross, while working. British Airways placed her on unpaid leave for doing so. The British courts ruled in favour of British Airways and against Eweida under the Human Rights Act 1998, an Act of the British Parliament which implements the European Convention in British law. Eweida then brought a complaint under the European Convention against the Government of the United Kingdom, alleging that the decisions of the British courts amounted to a failure by the United Kingdom to protect her religious rights.
The case was widely reported in the British media. Some individuals argued that British Airways' policy showed anti-Christian prejudice. [2] Other groups argued that it showed favouritism towards people of faith. [3] [4]
In October 2006, Nadia Eweida, a Christian employee of British Airways, was asked to cover up a cross necklace which depicted a Christian cross, and was placed on unpaid leave when she refused either to do so or to accept a position where she did not have to cover it up. She was wearing the necklace on the outside of her uniform, contravening BA's uniform policy for jewellery. Eweida planned to sue the airline for religious discrimination. Some Christian groups accused British Airways of double standards, as Sikh and Muslim employees are not prevented from wearing religious garments at work, since these are impractical to cover up. [2] Although the wearing of garments is a requirement in some faiths, in this case, British Airways believes that wearing a cross is not necessary in Christianity, in general.
Eweida lost an initial appeal to her employers on 20 November, but publicly stated she would continue to dispute BA's policy, and that she wished to wear the cross to manifest her religion: [5] the BBC quoted her as saying, "It is important to wear it to express my faith so that other people will know that Jesus loves them." [6]
The National Secular Society argued it was sensible for staff handling baggage to be prohibited from wearing jewellery over their uniforms, said that Eweida was trying to evangelise in the workplace [7] and that BA should have the right to insist that its uniform is neutral. [6] [8]
BA, having had the same policy with regard to jewellery being worn with the uniform for a long time, with which other staff were comfortable, responded to pressure and announced on 25 November a review of its uniform policy which could allow the wearing of a lapel badge. The Archbishop of Canterbury disclosed that the issue had been raised with the Church Commissioners, who look after Anglicans' financial interests. [9] The following day Eweida declared that this compromise was unacceptable to her. [10]
On 28 November, the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, publicly stated that in his view the issue was not worth BA fighting and that it would be best for the airline "just to do the sensible thing": i.e. allow the cross to be worn. [11] [12]
On 19 January 2007, BA announced that they would in future allow employees to wear a symbol of faith "openly" on a lapel pin, "with some flexibility ... to wear a symbol of faith on a chain". [13] [14]
Although BA changed its policy, it refused to pay Eweida for the period of her suspension. [15] Eweida opted to pursue her case against BA at an employment tribunal, citing the original BA ruling as a form of discrimination against Christians. [16] On 8 January 2008, after rejecting an out of court settlement offer reported at £8,500, Eweida lost her case. It was rejected on the grounds that she had breached the firm's regulations without good cause. [17] The tribunal commented that it was "not a tribunal of faith". [18] The tribunal's report highlighted several other issues regarding Eweida's conduct at BA, including refusing to work on Christmas Day and telling a gay colleague that he could still be "redeemed". [19]
In the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Elias J refused Ms Eweida's appeal. [20]
Eweida first appealed to the Court of Appeal for a costs capping order, which was shortly refused. [21] She then appealed on substantive grounds, which also failed in February, 2010. [22] Sedley LJ upheld the judgment of the EAT. [23]
In October 2010, after the Supreme Court refused to hear her case, Ms. Eweida announced her intention to seek redress in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. [24]
The European Court of Human Rights heard Ms. Eweida's case in September 2012, in combination with three other cases. [25] This was against the UK government for failing to provide domestic law to protect the claimed rights, [26] rather than against BA. In January 2013, the court found that her rights had been violated under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and awarded her damages of €2,000 plus costs of €30,000. [27] They ruled this as they said British Airways had not reached a fair balance between Eweida's religious beliefs and the company's desire to have a particular corporate image. [28]
The court said the following, in weighing up the merits of the case.
94. It is clear, in the view of the Court, that these factors combined to mitigate the extent of the interference suffered by the applicant and must be taken into account. Moreover, in weighing the proportionality of the measures taken by a private company in respect of its employee, the national authorities, in particular the courts, operate within a margin of appreciation. Nonetheless, the Court has reached the conclusion in the present case that a fair balance was not struck. On one side of the scales was Ms Eweida's desire to manifest her religious belief. As previously noted, this is a fundamental right: because a healthy democratic society needs to tolerate and sustain pluralism and diversity; but also because of the value to an individual who has made religion a central tenet of his or her life to be able to communicate that belief to others. On the other side of the scales was the employer's wish to project a certain corporate image. The Court considers that, while this aim was undoubtedly legitimate, the domestic courts accorded it too much weight. Ms Eweida's cross was discreet and cannot have detracted from her professional appearance. There was no evidence that the wearing of other, previously authorised, items of religious clothing, such as turbans and hijabs, by other employees, had any negative impact on British Airways' brand or image. Moreover, the fact that the company was able to amend the uniform code to allow for the visible wearing of religious symbolic jewellery demonstrates that the earlier prohibition was not of crucial importance.
This case highlighted some issues around the inadequacy of UK employment equality law in dealing with religion cases. There has been a suggestion from lawyers at Lewis Silkin LLP that perhaps a better approach might be for employers to have a duty to make adjustments to accommodate religion (as currently exists in the US and Canada). [29]
A dress code is a set of rules, often written, with regard to what clothing groups of people must wear. Dress codes are created out of social perceptions and norms, and vary based on purpose, circumstances, and occasions. Different societies and cultures are likely to have different dress codes, Western dress codes being a prominent example.
The right to freedom of religion in the United Kingdom is provided for in all three constituent legal systems, by devolved, national, European, and international law and treaty. Four constituent nations compose the United Kingdom, resulting in an inconsistent religious character, and there is no state church for the whole kingdom.
R (Begum) v Governors of Denbigh High School [2006] is a House of Lords case on the legal regulation of religious symbols and dress under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Freedom of religion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference.
Sir Patrick Elias, PC, is a retired Lord Justice of Appeal.
Hijab and burka controversies in Europe revolve around the variety of headdresses worn by Muslim women, which have become prominent symbols of the presence of Islam in especially Western Europe. In several countries, the adherence to hijab has led to political controversies and proposals for a legal partial or full ban in some or all circumstances. Some countries already have laws banning the wearing of masks in public, which can be applied to veils that conceal the face. Other countries are debating similar legislation, or have more limited prohibitions. Some of them apply only to face-covering clothing such as the burqa, boushiya, or niqab; some apply to any clothing with an Islamic religious symbolism such as the khimar, a type of headscarf. The issue has different names in different countries, and "the veil" or hijab may be used as general terms for the debate, representing more than just the veil itself, or the concept of modesty embodied in hijab.
Modern pagans are a religious minority in every country where they exist and have been subject to religious discrimination and/or religious persecution. The largest modern pagans communities are in North America and the United Kingdom, and the issue of discrimination receives most attention in those locations, but there are also reports from Australia and Greece.
Christian Concern is the trading name of CCFON Ltd, a not for profit advocacy group described as 'one of the most prominent evangelical organisations in the United Kingdom', reaching a mailing list of more than 43,000 people. Christian Concern seeks to alter law and influence the media and government, and is linked to the Christian Legal Centre organisation.
R v Millais School Governing Body [2007] EWHC 1698 (Admin) is an English discrimination law case concerning freedom of religion. It was decided under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Redfearn v Serco Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 659 and Redfearn v United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 1878 is a UK labour law and European Court of Human Rights case. It held that UK law was deficient in not allowing a potential claim based on discrimination for one's political belief. Before the case was decided, the Equality Act 2010 provided a remedy to protect political beliefs, though it had not come into effect when this case was brought forth.
Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a Jewish Air Force officer was denied the right to wear a yarmulke when in uniform on the grounds that the Free Exercise Clause applies less strictly to the military than to ordinary citizens.
The Christian Legal Centre (CLC) is a private company which was set up in December 2007 which acts in a number of high-profile cases purportedly on behalf of Evangelical Christians in the United Kingdom. It has lost most of its legal cases. Observers believe the centre has adopted tactics from wealthy evangelical groups in the US, notably the powerful Alliance Defence Fund, and raised questions about its funding. They are linked to the Christian Concern campaigning organisation. The group campaigns on gender sexuality, and marriage, which it claims is “the union between one man and one woman”. It labels homosexuality, as well as pre-marital sex and pornography, a “problem”.
Lautsi v. Italy was a case brought before the European Court of Human Rights, which, on 18 March 2011, ruled that the requirement in Italian law that crucifixes be displayed in classrooms of schools does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights.
Grainger plc v Nicholson [2010] IRLR 4 is a UK employment discrimination law case, concerning the protection of religion or belief. Regarding the question of an employee's conviction about climate change, it examines the scope of the legislation's protection.
McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd[2010] EWCA Civ 880; [2010] IRLR 872; 29 BHRC 249 was an application in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales for permission to appeal against a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, that a relationship counsellor dismissed for refusing to counsel same sex couples on sexual matters because of his Christian beliefs did not suffer discrimination under the Employment Equality Regulations 2003. The application was heard by Lord Justice Laws, who issued his decision on 29 April 2010 refusing the application.
A ban on sharia law is legislation that prohibits the application or implementation of Islamic law (Sharia) in courts in any civil (non-religious) jurisdiction. In the United States, various states have "banned Sharia law," or passed some kind of ballot measure that "prohibits the state’s courts from considering foreign, international or religious law." As of 2014 these include Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee. In the Canadian province of Ontario, family law disputes are arbitrated only under Ontario law.
British Airways plc v Williams (2011) C-155/10 is a UK labour law and EU law decision by the European Court of Justice regarding the right to holidays with pay, which is found in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights article 24, the Working Time Directive and the Working Time Regulations 1998. Williams itself was decided under analogous rules found in the Civil Aviation Regulations 2004. It held that variable components in pay, such as bonuses, must be included in the amount of pay people receive while they are on holiday.
Ladele v London Borough of Islington [2009] EWCA Civ 1357 is a UK labour law case concerning discrimination against same sex couples by a religious person in a public office.
A cross necklace is any necklace featuring a Christian cross or crucifix.
Forstater v Center for Global Development Europe is a UK employment and discrimination case brought by Maya Forstater against the Center for Global Development (CGD). The Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that gender-critical views are capable of being protected as a belief under the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal further clarified that this finding does not mean that people with gender-critical beliefs can express them in a manner that discriminates against trans people.