ECHR upholds one Christian but dismisses other cases

[quisquose]

That depends on whether her employer had a "no jewelry" policy though, doesn't it. Were all employees barred from wearing earings/other jewlery, or was this specifically about her cross? If it was, then she is clearly battleing against discrimination.

 

If Nadia Eweida alone had been told not to wear a necklace, or employees had been told that only Christian necklaces were forbidden, then that would be discriminatory I agree.

 

But that wasn't the case:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/17/acrosstobear?INTCMP=SRCH

 

I recommend everybody reads that article before forming an opinion on whether the European Court got the Eweida case right, and the UK Court's got it wrong.

[onewheeldave]

Im not convinced that it does. The company had a reasonable policy which she refused to comply with on religious grounds. From the reports she was offered alternatives such as moving to a non-customer-facing role, and/or tucking the cross insider her top so it was not on display.

 

 

She clearly thought the alternatives were not adequate, as would I in that situation. From her perspective, the small piece of jewelry was not a problem, being non-offensive and not a H&S issue.

 

I remember being served in Holland and Barretts by a girl who had been forced to place a piece of tape over her lower lip as she had a labret piercing. It's just humiliating and I'm very glad that a few individuals have to guts to stand up, say no, and take these ridiclous employers to a court.

 

It's also notable that these cases tend to be based on prejudice- a particular employer has an issue with piercings or religious symbols and decides to harrass an employee over it. Piercings are not illegal in this country, neither is wearing jewelry. It is illegal to discriminate and victimise employees though.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, a bit of a rubbish example, but the point I was trying to make is that my company offered me alternatives. If I had have refused the desk which was suitable, would I then be able to claim against my employer? This seems to be what this lady has done. She has refused to comply with the company rules, and then refused options to allow her continuned employement.

 

 

 

In your case, the employer behaved very reasonably, and, you were happy with what they did.

 

In the case being discussed here, neither of those are true- the employer (arguably) did not offer a reasonable alternative, and (indisputably), the employee was not happy with what they offered.

 

employement.

 

 

 

 

Personally, I don't find a cross, star of david, or any other particular religious symbol offensive, but some people do. The "God Hates Fags" slogan is clearly designed to be offensive to others so you are right it's a non starter. But let's try another example.

 

If I were a "Jedi" - Could I disobey my companies policy on clothing by wearing.....whatever Jedi's wear?

 

I don't know. Jedi is not taken that seriously as a religion in this country. I know there was a incident concerning the wearing of hoods recently-

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/18/jedi-religion-tesco-hood-jones

 

Not sure how relevant it is, given that shops tend to bar customers wearing hoods/crash helmets etc due to concerns about robbery etc.

 

I guess there could be similar issues with burkhas.

 

But, like i said above, this was a small cross, I'm not aware of any valid reasons given as to why the cross was a problem, so talk of jedis and burkhas isn't, as far as I can see, particularly relevant.

 

---------- Post added 16-01-2013 at 14:20 ----------

 

If Nadia Eweida alone had been told not to wear a necklace, or employees had been told that only Christian necklaces were forbidden, then that would be discriminatory I agree.

 

But that wasn't the case:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/17/acrosstobear?INTCMP=SRCH

 

I recommend everybody reads that article before forming an opinion on whether the European Court got the Eweida case right, and the UK Court's got it wrong.

 

OK, read that. Not sure how accurate it is, it is, after all, a newspaper article, which are not known for their strict adherence to the facts.

 

But, even if it's all true, much of it is not relevant. If, as the article claims, she did try to push her faith on others, then BA would have been within their rights to discipline her on that. They didn't, they chose to harass her over a cross.

 

If she did refuse to work on Christmas day, then, again, BA could have had a case- they didn't though, they chose to harass her over a cross.

 

(Incidently, if people refuse to work on Christmas day, then, IMO, fair enough- this current situation where employers can force their employees to work on christmas day or face the sack, is, IMO, wrong, and, I look forward to the day when a brave individual takes one to court and, hopefully, gets that power removed from employers as well).

 

---------- Post added 16-01-2013 at 14:23 ----------

 

That article reeks of an employer who has been shown to be wrong in court, then trying to savce face via character assasination. I'm suspicious, if she had done those things she's accused of, BA could have disciplined, possibly dismissed her. Why didn't they? Why, instead, did they choose to harass her over a cross. Maybe the simplest explanation is that, all along, their issue was with the cross, and, all those other claims have been either made-up, or exaggerated due to the court case.

[Stomp]

@ onewheeldave , I agree with parts of your post, but not others. I guess that's human nature!

 

I agree that a newspaper article can't really be a reliable source, as they will always have their slant on things. The article linked to above slated the Daily Mail which is unneccessary really, but it does link to the full tribunal record, but that link is broken.

 

You are correct that if [/f] the lady in question has done the other things she is accused of (Telling a gay man its not too late to be redeemed seems a little out of context. I can't imagine her just going up to him and coming straight out with it!) like taking a judemental attitude with people, and the like then BA could have taken her to task over that, but I don't know if the "offence" of "attitude" is grounds for dismissal, otherwise a lot of people I work with would have been sacked a long time ago!

 

In terms of Christmas Day working - or not - then I can see her point here. At my company there is a perception that when it is Ramadam, or Eid the Muslim workforce is given more priority to have time off (although it is not recognised as a bank holiday and so must be taken out of their leave allowance), but when it comes to Christmas the attitude is harder, and getting time off is all dependant on the company feeling generous. I could see a Christian taking issue at this, but having a hard time proving it.

 

I still don't think I am convinced she has a case for religious discrimination, unless she has proved beyond reasonable doubt that other colleauges were allowed to express their religion with similar exceptions to the uniform rules.

 

The other stuff about her general character isn't relevant to the facts of the case, which seem to boil down to:

 

"Was she refused permission to wear her cross, when other colleagues were permitted to wear other jewlery (religious or no) without issue?" IF the answer is yes, then she has a case. If the answer is no then she does not. Simple.

[quisquose]

If she did refuse to work on Christmas day, then, again, BA could have had a case- they didn't though, they chose to harass her over a cross.

 

No they most definitely didn't, and it just shows your own prejudice in saying so.

 

It was a uniform policy that applied to everyone.

 

BA even changed their uniform policy because of her campaign, and the negative effects it had from certain media sources, but this wasn't good enough for her, she had to go to tribunal and the courts.

 

If BA had said it was a H&S issue (dangling jewellery and luggage conveyors are not a good idea) then she would have lost, like Shirley Chaplain, as it was I still think she should have lost and the tribunal was right.

 

If the Court had decided that the rights of an individual to wear jewellery outweigh the rights of an employer to set corporate identity if the jewellery is discreet, then I would be okay with that, but it didn't. The Court decided that the rights of an individual to wear jewellery outweigh the rights of an employer to set corporate identity if the jewellery is discreet and religious.

 

I think her case sets an unfavourable privilege for religious identity over non religious identity.

[Stomp]

I think her case sets an unfavourable privilege for religious identity over non religious identity.

 

I agree. I am a Christian as already mentioned, and wear a Crucifix, but if my employer set a "necklaces must be covered" policy then I would comply with it. The right of an employer to set it's own rules regarding clothing must come first.

[tinfoilhat]

I agree. I am a Christian as already mentioned, and wear a Crucifix, but if my employer set a "necklaces must be covered" policy then I would comply with it. The right of an employer to set it's own rules regarding clothing must come first.

 

Which doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Working Christmas day, if you work in a certain industry doesn't seem unreasonable either - Onewheeldave feels differently. I hope for his sake a care home worker looking after one of his elderly realitives isn't the one who try's the test case.