Nadia Eweida worked for British Airways (“B.A.”) for 7 years as a check in clerk at London’s Heathrow. In 2006 she was suspended without full pay, after refusing to take off a cross necklace she wore as a sign of her Christianity. B.A. argued that this was contrary to its uniform policy, which prohibited visible jewellery being worn.

Ms Eweida refused to conceal her cross, citing that her Muslim and Sikh counterparts were allowed to wear visible bracelets and turbans as symbols of their beliefs.

Ms Eweida returned to work after B.A. changed its uniform policy permitting her to wear her cross, however, she pursued an action against B.A. for indirect religious discrimination, claiming compensation and back pay for when she was suspended from work.

Ms Eweida’s claim was unsuccessful both at first instance and on appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”). Ms Eweida pursued her action in the Court of Appeal, where, in February 2010, it was decided again that B.A. did not indirectly discriminate against Ms Eweida on religious grounds.

Ms Eweida is now intent on pursuing action in the Supreme Court.

What does this mean for employers?

Employers should be careful when implementing uniform policies. Where possible, ‘blanket bans’ should be avoided and a degree of flexibility maintained in order to reduce discrimination claims.

Ms Eweida’s claim failed in the EAT as it ruled that it was a personal choice to display a cross and not a requirement of Ms Eweida’s religion. However, employers should tred carefully when addressing such issues – it will not always be possible to rely on this justification. What was unusual about the Eweida case was that other religious symbols were permitted to be worn in the workplace.

When drafting a uniform policy, employers are advised to be as non-specific as possible, for example, by stating simply that formal dress should be adopted, if appropriate, and/or by providing non-binding suggestions of suitable dress. Employers should avoid telling employees specifically what they should or should not wear (unless this relates to health and safety, for which it is advised a separate policy is used).

The key to having a successful, fair and non-contested dress code is not necessarily the drafting of the policy, but its implementation. Maintaining sensitivity to individual cases, religions and beliefs will determine whether or not employees feel they are being treated unfairly and thus feel the need to bring a claim.

If you have any queries on any of the above please contact Alison Loveday at alisonl@berg.co.uk to discuss further issues. Alternatively you contact Alison on 0161 833 9211.

The information and opinions contained in this document are not intended to be comprehensive, nor to provide legal advice. No responsibility for its accuracy or correctness is assumed by Berg Legal, or any of its partners or employees. Professional legal advice should be obtained before taking, or refraining from taking, any action as a result of the contents of this document.