A British Airways worker who was suspended for wearing a cross around her neck to work has lost her case alleging religious discrimination.

Nadia Eweida took her case to an employment tribunal after complaining that a manager had banned her wearing the Christian symbol.

But the tribunal in Reading rejected her claim yesterday on the grounds that she had breached the firm's regulations without good cause. The tribunal, under its chairman, Robin Lewis, said yesterday: The complaint of direct discrimination fails because we find that the claimant did not, on grounds of religion or belief, suffer less favourable treatment than a comparator in identical circumstances.

Eweida, who turned down an offer of £8,500 from BA to settle out of court, said she was disappointed by the decision but would fight on. I'm speechless really because I went to the tribunal to seek justice. I cannot be gagged about my faith. It's not over until God says it's over.

Following the dispute, British Airways revised its guidelines and now allows a limited number of religious symbols to be worn.

Responding to the decision yesterday, BA said: We have always maintained that our uniform policy did not discriminate against Christians and we are pleased that the tribunal's decision supports our position.

British Airways check-in employee Nadia Eweida who was banned from wearing a Christian cross at work is to take her case to the Court of Appeal.

Eweida claimed that she was the victim of religious discrimination after being told that her small crucifix necklace did not conform to uniform regulations. After extensive publicity of the case the airline changed its rules and allowed her back to work at Heathrow

But Eweida wants to overturn an employment tribunal ruling that she was not a victim of religious discrimination, and has now won the support of the civil rights group Liberty.

Shami Chakrabarti, the group's director, told the Daily Mail: This woman's cross was as important to her as a turban or hijab to other people in our country. British Airways sensibly changed the policy but unfortunately didn't concede the case which has left a dangerous precedent in the case law what we intend to overturn.

All that we are seeking for everyone in Britain is freedom of thought, conscience and religion and equal treatment under the law.

Divorced From Reality

From the National Secular Society

Lillian Ladele, the Islington registrar who refused to conduct same-sex Civil Partnerships on religious grounds, has been refused leave to appeal against the decision of an Employment Tribunal that she did not suffer religious discrimination at work. She has also been ordered to pay costs.

The National Secular Society has commended Islington Council for standing firm in its defence of equality against considerable pressure from the media and religious activists.

A Christian airport worker faces financial ruin after judges decided she must pick up the bill if she loses her court battle with British Airways over her treatment for wearing a silver cross at work.

Three senior judges refused to grant an order guaranteeing that Nadia Eweida would not have to pay BA's estimated £58,000 legal costs if she lost the case, which is scheduled for the Court of Appeal in January.

Eweida is seeking to overturn a decision by the Employment Appeal Tribunal that she was not a victim of religious discrimination by BA.

The tribunal was told she went home from work in September 2006 after failing to reach a compromise with managers over the visible display of a silver cross on a chain round her neck. The next year, BA changed its uniform policy and Eweida returned to work. But she was unpaid while absent and claims BA should admit its previous policy was unlawful and pay her around £120,000 in damages and lost wages.

She argues that, while Muslims and Sikhs were allowed to wear hijabs and religious Kara bangles respectively, she as a Christian had been asked to remove her cross necklace or hide it from sight.

This week she asked three Appeal Court judges for a protective costs order and claimed that as her case was of general importance she should not have to run the risk of paying a massive bill if she lost. Without a no costs guarantee or at least a £25,000 cap on her costs liability, she would not be able to pursue her appeal, the court was told.

The Christian's right to wear a cross must be defended as fiercely as any other religious liberty

Today Liberty returns to court. We go to the Court of Appeal to protect freedom of thought, conscience and religion from unjustified intrusion and prejudice.

You may remember the story of Nadia Eweida, the British Airways check-in worker who was banned from wearing a small cross on a chain. This modest manifestation of her faith was as important to her as a turban or hijab to other workers. Yet the airline accommodated these other items without, perhaps, embracing the underlying values that would have protected Ms Eweida and anyone else from the blundering assertion that rules is rules is rules.

After a public outcry that included secular, religious and political voices from across the spectrum, the airline modified its uniform policy. But not before Ms Eweida had been off work for months without pay, and crucially, without accepting the ethical and legal principle that would protect her and others of all faiths and none in the future. Worse still, BA instructed an international law firm strenuously to resist her claim of religious discrimination.

...Read full article

A Christian has lost her appeal against a ruling which cleared British Airways of discrimination by stopping her wearing a cross visibly at work.

Nadia Eweida had wanted three judges to overturn a decision by the Employment Appeal Tribunal that she was not a victim of indirect religion or belief discrimination.

Lord Justice Sedley, giving the ruling of the court, said her case of indirect discrimination was defeated by BA's case on justification. Related articles

He said: This case has perhaps illustrated some of the problems which can arise when an individual asserts that a provision, criterion or practice adopted by an employer conflicts with beliefs which they hold but which may not only not be shared but may be opposed by others in the workforce. It is not unthinkable that a blanket ban may sometimes be the only fair solution.

Eweida, who is backed by human rights group Liberty, returned to work after the policy change but claimed she was due around £120,000 in damages and lost wages.

Corinna Ferguson, Liberty's legal officer who represents Ms Ewedia, said: This is a disappointing judgment that will do little to build public confidence in equality laws protecting everyone. But this is just the sort of case that a Supreme Court is for and we have every hope that the highest court in the land will put Britain's long tradition of religious tolerance into modern legal practice.

Lord Carey, former archbishop of Canterbury and supporter of Ms Eweida, said: The news that Nadia Eweida's appeal has failed is a sad blow both to her personally, and the cause of religious liberties and freedoms. Sadly, the failure of this appeal is likely to lead to further cases of religious discrimination. I believe it is not an exaggeration to say that people of faith are facing particular hardship in a period where different freedoms and rights are being tested against each other.

Carla Revere, vice president of the National Secular Society, said: At the moment, employers are walking on eggshells in many areas which involve religion at work. We hope that this judgment will help them feel more confident in setting their employment policies in relation to dress codes and other religious requirements.

A Christian British Airways employee who has waged a long legal battle with the airline over the wearing of a cross is to take her case to the European Court of Human Rights. Nadia Eweida said she was making the move as she had exhausted all legal avenues in the UK.

Ms Eweida, from Twickenham, south west London, said: I have been given to understand that it will take four to six months before I hear whether my case will be accepted and heard.

The case stems from BA's original uniform policy which prevented Eweida from wearing her Christian cross silver chain around her neck at work. Later, BA changed its uniform policy and Eweida returned to work in customer services. An Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled in December 2008 that she was not a victim of religious discrimination.

The Christian Legal Centre says it is receiving up to five calls a day from Christians seeking to take action against their employers whom they feel are failing to respect their faith.

Andrea Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre, said that her organisation would continue to contest policies it viewed as anti-Christian.

Christians across the centuries have been prepared to lose their lives for their faith by standing up for what they believe in because they love Jesus Christ, she said. The Christian Legal Centre will not allow Christianity to be eliminated from the public sphere or to be silenced or sidelined.

Questions have been asked about from where the centre -- and its sister organisation, Christian Concern For Our Nation -- obtain funding. Accounts show both organisations have little in the way of income.

Williams said all of the centre's work was done on a pro bono basis by committed Christian lawyers and that what money it had came in small donations from more than 30,000 people who received its regular email updates. We never ask clients for money, she said. Very often they fear losing their case and having to pay the costs of the other side. Part of our ministry is to ensure they are not burdened with that.

Close observers of the centre believe it is adopting the tactics of wealthy US evangelical groups, notably the powerful Alliance Defence Fund, which, through its Blackstone Legal Fellowship, trains an army of Christian lawyers to defend religious freedom through strategy, training, funding and direct litigation.

...Read the full article