Christian workers can wear 'discreet' crosses, Strasbourg decides

Banning Christian workers from wearing “discreet” crosses which do not detract from their professional appearance is a breach of their human rights, the European Court of Human Rights ruled this morning.

Nadia Eweida, an Egyptian Coptic Christian, decided in 2006 to start wearing a small cross openly, rather than concealing it under her British Airways uniform.

This was a breach of BA’s uniform policy, which allowed Sikh men to wear turbans and the Sikh bracelet in summer and Muslim women to wear hijabs.

Eweida was asked by her manager to conceal the cross beneath her cravat. For a while she complied, but then refused and was sent home without pay. She rejected an offer of administrative work.

Fair balance

The Strasbourg court said that a “fair balance was not struck” between Eweida’s desire to manifest her religious belief, protected by article 9 of the convention, and her employer’s wish to “project a certain corporate image”.

The European judges went on: “The court considers that, while this aim was undoubtedly legitimate, the domestic courts accorded it too much weight.

“Ms Eweida’s cross was discreet and cannot have detracted from her professional appearance. There was no evidence that the wearing of other, previously authorised, items of religious clothing, such as turbans and hijabs, by other employees, had any negative impact on British Airways’ brand or image.

“Moreover, the fact that the company was able to amend the uniform code to allow for the visible wearing of religious symbolic jewellery demonstrates that the earlier prohibition was not of crucial importance.

“The court therefore concludes that, in these circumstances where there is no evidence of any real encroachment on the interests of others, the domestic authorities failed sufficiently to protect the first applicant’s right to manifest her religion, in breach of the positive obligation under article 9.”

Rejecting the Court of Appeal’s ruling on the issue and agreeing with the original employment tribunal decision, the ECtHR awarded Eweida 2,000 euros in compensation for her hurt feelings and 30,000 euros in costs.

However the court took a different view in the case of Shirley Chaplin, a nurse working with the elderly who had always worn a cross round her neck.

In 2007 new tunics were introduced by her hospital so the cross was more “visible and accessible”, both at the back of her neck and the front, the ECtHR heard.

For health and safety reasons, her manager asked her to remove it, but she refused and was moved to a non-nursing position.

Rejecting her claim for protection under article 9, the court said the reason for asking her to remove the cross, the protection of health and safety on a hospital ward, was “of greater magnitude” than the one which applied in respect of Eweida.

The ECtHR also rejected the claims of Lillian Ladele, a Christian registrar working for Islington Council, who refused to undertake civil partnership ceremonies.

It held that the council’s policy aimed to “secure the rights of others which are also protected under the Convention” and national authorities were generally allowed “a wide margin of appreciation when it comes to striking a balance between competing Convention rights”.

The Strasbourg judges also found that the UK had a wide margin of appreciation in the case of Gary McFarlane, a Relate counsellor who voluntarily enrolled on a training programme on “psycho-sexual counselling”.

McFarlane’s human rights were not breached when his refusal to provide the counselling to same-sex couples resulted in the loss of his job, the ECtHR concluded.