Ms. Eweida, a British Airways employee, wanted to wear a visible cross necklace at work but was prohibited by the company's policy barring visible religious symbols. UK courts initially ruled against Ms. Eweida, finding no direct or indirect discrimination. However, the European Court of Human Rights later ruled in her favor, saying the UK placed too much emphasis on corporate image concerns over her freedom of religious expression. The ruling found that wearing a religious symbol can be a manifestation of faith that employers cannot simply override by referring workers to other jobs.

1. WTF HR presents
EWEIDA IN under 5 MINUTES

2. What’s the row?
• Ms Eweida works for British Airways
• They had a policy …
• No religious symbols to be worn visibly
unless it was a mandatory religious
requirement
• Ms Eweida wanted to wear a cross
• Unpopular with: vampires and BA

3. The uk courts
• Not Direct discrimination
• Policy applies to members of all religions
• Not indirect discrimination
• Ms Eweida couldn’t show others shared her
belief
• That meant no group disadvantage
• FAIL

4. European court
of human rights
• The convention protects freedom of religion
• Wearing a cross was a manifestation of
religion
• UK had allowed concerns about corporate
image to trump the freedom
• That was bad – should have done more to
protect Ms Eweida’s rights
• WIN

5. Take away menu
• Freedom of religion is not protected just by
saying you are free to go get another job.
• Corporate image may not trump freedom of
religion but other things might including
health and safety (see chaplin)
• No right to wear a cross at work
• Where does this leave indirect discrimination?

6. ©WTF HR 2013
@Seanjones11kbw