BA ban “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate business aim”
British Airways did not indirectly discriminate against Nadia Eweida by adopting a staff dress code which banned the wearing of visible neck adornment, the Court of Appeal has ruled.
In Eweida v British Airways [2010] EWCA Civ 80 the court rejected the submission that one individual person could be the victim of indirect discrimination. Lord Justice Sedley pointed out that this would place “an impossible burden on employers to anticipate and provide for what may be parochial or even factitious beliefs in society at large”. At least a small group of workers must be shown to share the disadvantage with the claimant for a finding of indirect discrimination to be made.
The court further found that BA’s dress code and the ban on adornment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate business aim.
Sedley LJ said: “On the footing on which the indirect discrimination claim is now advanced, namely disadvantage to a single individual arising out of her wish to manifest her faith in a particular way, everything in the tribunal’s findings of fact shows the rule, both during the years when it operated without objection and while it was being reconsidered on Ms Eweida’s instigation, to have been a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The contrary is not in my view arguable.”
Eweida, a part-time member of BA’s check-in staff, is a devout Christian and wears a silver cross on a necklace. She was asked to remove the necklace two years after BA introduced a new uniform with an open neck, as her cross was visible. She left and remained at home, unpaid, for several months until BA revised its policy to allow staff to display a faith or charity symbol with their uniform. She has since returned to work.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
