| Eweida v United Kingdom | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | European Court of Human Rights |
| Citation | [2013] ECHR 37 |
| Case history | |
| Prior actions | Eweida v British Airways Plc, [2008] UKEAT 0123_08_2011 Eweida v British Airways Plc, [2010] EWCA Civ 80 (CA), [2010] IRLR 322 Eweida v United Kingdom [2011] ECHR 738 (preliminary questions) |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | David Thór Björgvinsson (President), Nicolas Bratza, Lech Garlicki, Päivi Hirvelä, Zdravka Kalaydjieva, Nebojša Vučinić, Vincent A. De Gaetano |
| Keywords | |
| Indirect discrimination, religion, clothing policy | |
Eweida v United Kingdom [2013] ECHR 37 is a UK labour law decision of the European Court of Human Rights, concerning the duty of the government of the United Kingdom to protect the religious rights of individuals under the European Convention on Human Rights.[1] The European Court found that the British government had failed to protect the complainant's right to manifest her religion, in breach of Article 9 of the European Convention. For failing to protect her rights, the British government was found liable to pay non-pecuniary damages of €2,000, along with a costs award of €30,000.
The case arose from a dispute between British Airways (BA) and one of its employees, Nadia Eweida, over its uniform policy, which required that religious jewellery had to be worn out of sight, under one's clothing. Eweida visibly wore a necklace with a religious symbol, a small cross, while working. British Airways placed her on unpaid leave for doing so. The British courts ruled in favour of British Airways and against Eweida under the Human Rights Act 1998, an Act of the British Parliament which implements the European Convention in British law. Eweida then brought a complaint under the European Convention against the Government of the United Kingdom, alleging that the decisions of the British courts amounted to a failure by the United Kingdom to protect her religious rights.
The case was widely reported in the British media. Some individuals argued that British Airways' policy showed anti-Christian prejudice.[2] Other groups argued that it showed favouritism towards people of faith.[3][4]
- ^ E McGaughey, A Casebook on Labour Law (Hart 2019) ch 13, 598
- ^ "Woman to sue BA in necklace row". BBC News. 15 October 2006. Retrieved 21 November 2006.
- ^ "Editorial: Christian Bullies Press Their Advantage". National Secular Society. 26 November 2006. Archived from the original on 8 December 2006. Retrieved 22 January 2008.
- ^ "BA needs defending from religious zealots, not the other way round". National Secular Society. 18 January 2008. Archived from the original on 7 March 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2008.