This much anticipated decision of the European Court of Human Rights has made it clear that religious views can be held in the workplace, but do not automatically rank above the rights of others.
Up for consideration was a selection of discrimination cases which questioned whether UK law goes far enough to protect employees who express their religious beliefs at work.
Ms Eweida worked for British Airways and wanted to wear a visible cross necklace to work, in breach of British Airway's uniform policy. Ms Chaplin was a nurse who, too, wanted to wear a cross to work. Then there was Ms Ladele, a registrar who refused to perform civil partnership ceremonies. And Mr McFarlane, a Relate counsellor who said that he might object to providing sexual counselling for same-sex couples.
Eweida
The ECHR held that the UK courts had placed too much weight on British Airway's desire to project a certain image. The cross worn by Ms Eweida was discreet, and there was no evidence that other clothing such as turbans and hijabs had a negative effect on BA's brand. So the UK had breached its obligations under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to freedom of thought, conscious and religion). BA's need to protect its image gave way to Ms Eweida's right to the reasonable expression of her religious belief.
Ms ChaplinIn Ms Chaplin's case the health and safety reasons for asking her to remove her cross outweighed the religious rights. There was no breach of Article 9.
Ms Ladele and Mr McFarlaneThe ECHR found against these two. The rights of the registrar and the counsellor did not trump the rights of others not to be discriminated against on grounds of sexual orientation. An employee who tries to opt-out of duties that do not align with their religious beliefs can not expect their employer to compromise equal opportunities policies by going along with this.
On the back of Ms Eweida's success, employers should now look closely at their dress codes and related image considerations and ask whether these could discriminate against religious groups? If the answer is yes, are they justified?
Up for consideration was a selection of discrimination cases which questioned whether UK law goes far enough to protect employees who express their religious beliefs at work.
Ms Eweida worked for British Airways and wanted to wear a visible cross necklace to work, in breach of British Airway's uniform policy. Ms Chaplin was a nurse who, too, wanted to wear a cross to work. Then there was Ms Ladele, a registrar who refused to perform civil partnership ceremonies. And Mr McFarlane, a Relate counsellor who said that he might object to providing sexual counselling for same-sex couples.
Eweida
The ECHR held that the UK courts had placed too much weight on British Airway's desire to project a certain image. The cross worn by Ms Eweida was discreet, and there was no evidence that other clothing such as turbans and hijabs had a negative effect on BA's brand. So the UK had breached its obligations under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to freedom of thought, conscious and religion). BA's need to protect its image gave way to Ms Eweida's right to the reasonable expression of her religious belief.
Ms ChaplinIn Ms Chaplin's case the health and safety reasons for asking her to remove her cross outweighed the religious rights. There was no breach of Article 9.
Ms Ladele and Mr McFarlaneThe ECHR found against these two. The rights of the registrar and the counsellor did not trump the rights of others not to be discriminated against on grounds of sexual orientation. An employee who tries to opt-out of duties that do not align with their religious beliefs can not expect their employer to compromise equal opportunities policies by going along with this.
On the back of Ms Eweida's success, employers should now look closely at their dress codes and related image considerations and ask whether these could discriminate against religious groups? If the answer is yes, are they justified?
No comments:
Post a Comment