Mfanyakazi British Airways ashinda kesi ya msalaba

A BRITISH Airways employee who claimed she suffered discrimination at work because of her faith has won a landmark legal battle at the European Court of Human Rights. 

 

Nadia Eweida, 60, took the airline to a tribunal after she was forced out of her job for wearing a cross in breach of company uniform codes.

Her case was rejected in Britain but on Tuesday European judges found in her favour. 

They ruled against three more Christians who launched similar action.

Ms Eweida, from Twickenham, southwest London, was sent home in September 2006 for displaying a small silver cross on a chain around her neck which she wore as a personal expression of her faith.

She took British Airways to a tribunal but a panel rejected her claims and ruled she was not a victim of religious discrimination.

The decision was upheld by The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court before Miss Eweida took her fight to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

She returned to work in customer services at Heathrow Airport's Terminal 5 in February 2007, after BA changed its uniform policy on visible items of jewellery.

At the ECHR, Ms Eweida argued BA's action contravened articles nine and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights which prohibit religious discrimination and allow "freedom of thought, conscience and religion".

Lawyers for the government, which contested the claim, argued her rights were only protected in private.

But judges on Tuesday ruled there had been a violation of article nine (freedom of religion), by five votes to two.

The judgment, published in Strasbourg, found a fair balance was not struck between Ms Eweida's desire to demonstrate her religious belief and BA's wish to "project a certain corporate image".

It found the airline's aim was "undoubtedly legitimate" but said domestic courts accorded it "too much weight".

It concluded: "Ms Eweida's cross was discreet and cannot have detracted from her professional appearance.

"There was no evidence that the wearing of other, previously authorised, items of religious clothing, such as turbans and hijabs, by other employees had any negative impact on British Airways' brand or image.

"Moreover, the fact that the company was able to amend the uniform code to allow for the visible wearing of religious symbolic jewellery demonstrates that the earlier prohibition was not of crucial importance.

"The court therefore concludes that, in these circumstances where there is no evidence of any real encroachment on the interests of others, the domestic authorities failed sufficiently to protect the first applicant's right to manifest her religion."

 

AAP