This is a preview. To continue reading please log in or Register to read this article

Religion or belief discrimination: "Solitary disadvantage" is insufficient to establish indirect religious discrimination

This report relates to 1 case(s)

  • expand

    Eweida v British Airways Plc [2010] IRLR 322 CA (2 other reports)

    • Case of the week: Religious discrimination

      Date:
      9 March 2010

      This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers religious discrimination.

    • Eweida v British Airways plc

      Date:
      15 February 2010

      The Court of Appeal has upheld an employment tribunal finding that a Christian employee, who was sent home when she insisted on wearing a cross visibly, in breach of the employer's uniform policy, did not suffer indirect discrimination. The Court rejected the employee's argument that the test of indirect discrimination was met, even if she was alone in being disadvantaged by the policy.

In Eweida v British Airways Plc [2010] IRLR 322 CA, the Court of Appeal held that a uniform policy that prevented the wearing of a visible item of adornment around the neck did not give rise to indirect discrimination against a Christian employee who wished to display a cross as a matter of personal preference, rather than as a mandatory religious requirement.