BA dress code forbidding the open display of faith symbols was not discriminatoryEweida v British Airways Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 80 | |||
www.workrep.co.uk | |||
Helping You About Links Contact Site Info HOME | |||
|
12/02/2010 British Airways did not indirectly discriminate against the claimant on religious grounds when she was not allowed to wear a cross openly around her neck. BA had a policy (later changed) of not allowing open displays of faith symbols by staff. The Claimant who insisted on wearing a cross openly around her neck was suspended without pay but following a public campaign against BA it changed its dress code and the claimant was allowed back to work. The submission that an individual could be subject to indirect discrimination was rejected. The court ruled that the notion that this could happen would be unreasonably difficult for employers in that they would need to provide for an unreasonable range of beliefs, including spurious ones. In order to claim indirect discrimination an identifiable portion of a workforce must be put at a particular disadvantage. The CA agreed with the employment tribunal that this was not the case here as there, "was no evidence of Christians failing to apply for employment, being denied employment if they applied for it, or failing to progress within the employment of the respondent", and that the "decision to wear the cross visibly was a personal choice, not a requirement of scripture or of the Christian religion".
|
|||
The transcript of this case follows:-
Eweida v British Airways Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 80 | |||
|
2010 When deciding whether to allow an amendment the lateness of the application is only one factor to be taken into account by the employment judge - Baker v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis [2010] UKEAT 0201_09_0502 National courts should should strike down discriminatory legislation - Seda Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co. KG [2010] ECJCase C-555/07 Judges restrict employers' use of the illegality defence against employee unfair dismissal claims - SAN LING CHINESE MEDICINE CENTRE v LIAN WEI JI - [2010] EAT UKEAT/0370/09/ZT There is a right to legal representation at a disciplinary which might result in the loss of the right to practise a profession - G, R (on the application of) v X School & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 1 Cabin crew spending 5% of their time in the UK were considered to have worked partly at an establishment in Great Britain. - BA v Mak EAT [2010] UKEAT/0055/09/SM The 'genuine occupational requirement' rule may apply to a maximum age for employment - Wolf v Stadt Frankfurt am Main [2010] Case C-229/08 ECJ Different dress codes do not necessarily amount to sex discrimination - Dansie v. The Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis [2009] UKEAT Certain conditions must exist for the obligation to carry out a risk assessment for a pregnant worker to arise - ONeill v. Buckinghamshire County Council [2010] UKEAT 2009 An employment tribunal may decide if a compromise decision is unenforcable - Industrious Ltd v Horizon Recruitment Ltd & Anor [2009] UKEAT Registrar claiming right to refuse to officiate at civil weddings loses religious discrimination case - Ladele v London Borough of Islington [2009] EWCA Civ 1357 A philosophical belief based on science is protected by the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 - Grainger Plc v Nicholson [2009] UKEAT/0219/09/ZT Christian counsellor who would not help same sex couples was not discriminated against - McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd [2009] UKEAT 0106_09_3011 Under TUPE the obligation to inform always applies, even when no measures are contemplated relating to the transfer - Cable Realisations Ltd v GMB Northern [2009] UKEAT The Court of Appeal rules on Harassment and 'Oppressive and Unacceptable' behaviour Veakins v Kier Islington Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1288 For s4A(3) of the DDA to apply the employer must have known (or ought to have known) that the employee was disabled and that the disability would affect him in the manner described in section 4A(1) - DWP v Alam [2009] UKEAT 0242_09_0911 A discrimination case may not proceed on the mere possibility that evidence might emerge during cross examination - ABN Amro Management Services v Hogben [2009] UKEAT 0266_09_0111 In cases of discriminatory dismissal tribunals may reduce compensation if the worker would in any event have been dismissed - Chagger v Abbey National Plc & Anor [2009] EWCA Civ 1202 It is possible to claim unfair dismissal abroad even if the workplace is registered outside the UK - Diggins v Condor Marine Crewing Services Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1133 Autoklenz 'Subcontractors' were employees - the contractual substitution clause was just 'window dressing' - Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 1046 |
|||
| |
|||
|
| |||