Religious Discrimination Ruling By The European Court Of Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights has just released its decision in respect of the applications of four practising Christians from the UK, Eweida, Chaplain, Ladele and McFarlane, addressing the issue of protection of the rights of individuals to manifest their religion at work, and the way in which that right should be balanced against the rights of others.

In the case of Eweida, the Court held that her right to manifest her religious belief had not been sufficiently protected by the UK. However, in the cases of Chaplain, Ladele and McFarlane there had been no violation of the individuals' rights.

The decision highlights the need for employers to carefully examine the aim of any particular policy or working practice and weigh up any conflicting religious interests in order to justify the policy or practice. Such policies or practices may be more difficult to justify where the reason behind the aim involves corporate interests (such as corporate image) as opposed to health and safety reasons or the protection of other individuals' rights (such as their right not to be discriminated against by reason of their sexual orientation).

The freedom to wear a visible cross whilst in work – Eweida and Chaplain

Ms Eweida, a BA employee, and Ms Chaplain, a nurse working for the NHS, complained in relation to restrictions enforced by their employers, preventing them from wearing visible crosses around their necks while in work. In the case of Ms Eweida, the restrictions applied when carrying out a customer facing role, and in the case of Ms Chaplain, when working with patients.

Eweida In Ms Eweida's case the balancing act was between Ms Eweida's desire to manifest her religious belief, by wearing her cross visibly around her neck, and BA's desire to project a certain corporate image, as set out in their dress code. Whilst the Court found that this was a legitimate aim, it found that the domestic courts had placed too much weight on this objective. In particular, the Court took into consideration the fact that BA had since amended its policy to allow visible wearing of religious symbols, showing that the earlier prohibition had not been of crucial importance.

The Court concluded that, as there was no evidence of any real encroachment on the interests of others, a fair balance had not been struck, and the domestic authorities (the UK) had failed to sufficiently protect Ms Eweida's rights to manifest her religion.

Chaplain By contrast, in the case of Ms...