British Appeals Court Says Airline's Ban on Religious Jewelry Was Not Employment Discrimination

In Eweida v. British Airways, PLC, (Eng. & Wales Ct. App., Feb. 12, 2010), Britain's Court of Appeal rejected claims that British Airways had discriminated against employee Nadia Ewieda when, because of its dress rules, it prevented her from wearing a small visible cross with her British Airways uniform. In the appeal-- challenging a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (see prior posting)-- the court said:

In the light of the publicity which this case has received, it is necessary to say what the appeal is not about. It is not about whether BA had adopted an anti-Christian dress code, nor whether members of other religions were more favourably treated, nor whether BA had harassed the appellant because of her beliefs. All of these allegations were rejected by an employment tribunal ... [whose] conclusions are now accepted.... The single issue on which the appellant ... now appeals to this court, was whether there had nevertheless been indirect discrimination which was unjustified.....

Relying on findings below that visible display of a cross was not a requirement of the Christian faith, the court concluded that Ms. Eweida had not shown the indirect discrimination that she had charged, and, if she had, it would have been justifiable as a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim. AFP yesterday reported on the decision.