Prohibiting clothing with a religious significance can be risky, says Charles Pigott
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) is due to pronounce on whether or not BA’s dress code indirectly discriminated against a Christian employee. This follows last year’s judgment about a classroom assistant’s veil and a more recent employment tribunal decision about a hairdresser’s headscarf, not to mention a number of cases about school uniforms.
Azmi v Kirklees Metropolitan Council [2007] IRLR 484 was the first appellate decision about employment dress codes under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1660). The EAT decided that although telling a classroom assistant to remove her veil while teaching was potentially indirect discrimination, imposing such a requirement was objectively justified.
The next significant decision was the employment tribunal’s judgment in Eweida v BA ET/2702689/06. It ruled that BA had not directly or indirectly discriminated against Ms Eweida when it insisted on compliance with its dress code, which precluded her from wearing a plain silver cross on a chain necklace visible outside her uniform.
Then came Noah
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
