The closely-watched ruling in the case of a British Airways (BA) employee who was ordered to stop wearing a cross at work has been met with broad approval from lawyers, with the high-profile case raising important questions about how employers handle the religious beliefs of their staff.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) this week ruled that BA had discriminated against check-in worker Nadia Eweida, who was sent home without pay for several months in 2006 after refusing to conceal or remove her cross.

BA subsequently launched a review of its uniform policy, which changed in 2007 to allow employees to display religious and charity symbols.

Eweida took her case to the ECHR after her case was dismissed by the Employment Tribunal and Court of Appeal in 2010.

James Dingemans QC (pictured) of 3 Hare Court was instructed by Manchester firm Aughton Ainsworth to represent Eweida, who successfully claimed that the airline discriminated against her Christian beliefs.

Ashurst head of employment Caroline Carter commented: "The ruling highlights the need for employers to strike a fair balance between competing rights.

"Importantly, it reinforces the need for employers to be able to properly justify, by showing they want to achieve a legitimate aim by proportionate means, why they are not permitting an employee to manifest their religious belief. In doing so the decision reiterates the current approach of UK law, as opposed to, in effect, introducing a new duty."

However, the court ruled against three other applicants, whose cases were heard together with Eweida's, who had claimed their employers violated their rights.

The trio were NHS nurse Shirley Chaplin, who was banned from wearing a cross for health and safety reasons, and marriage counsellor Gary McFarlane and registrar Lillian Ladele, who were dismissed from their respective jobs at charity Relate and Islington Council after they both said their Christian beliefs prevented them from dealing with same-sex couples.

Dundas & Wilson employment partner Robert Davies added: "Although the decision obviously has a bearing on wearing a cross at work, I think very few employers maintain BA's original approach in terms of banning the visible wearing of a cross at work, based purely on corporate image.

"This case originally surfaced in 2006 and caused a huge amount of furore at the time, which lead to BA amending its policy. For those employers who still prohibit wearing a cross at work, which is not for health and safety reasons then a rethink of that stance is advisable."

Full details of the legal advisers on the case

The UK Government: Blackstone Chambers' James Eadie QC and Matrix Chambers' Dan Squires, instructed by Ahila Sornarajah

Eweida: 3 Hare Court's James Dingemans QC and 11KBW's Sarah Moore, instructed by Aughton Ainsworth partner Tom Ellis

Ladele: Blackstone Chambers' Dinah Rose QC, Ben Jaffey and Chris McCrudden, instructed by Ormerods partner Mark Jones

Chaplin and McFarlane: Barrister Paul Diamond, instructed by the Christian Legal Centre's Andrea Williams and Andrew Marsh

The National Secular Society (the interveners): Blackstone Chambers' Lord Lester QC, University College London lecturer Ronan McCrea and Brick Court Chambers' Max Schaefer, instructed by DAC Beachcroft

Further reaction

"One of the significant aspects of the decision is that the legal protection can extend beyond manifestations which are a 'requirement' of the religion. The UK courts had taken the approach that the wearing of a cross was not a strict 'requirement' of the Christian faith; it was Ms Eweida's personal choice. This formed a key part of why BA's dress code was initially found not to be discriminatory. The European Court has said however that the manifestation of the belief needs only to be "intimately linked" to the belief. Once that is established, the employer will need to justify any policy which does not allow the employee to manifest the belief in the workplace. As BA discovered, the defence of 'corporate image' may not be enough.

"Understandably, employers might think the best way to maintain workplace harmony is to limit overt manifestations of religious beliefs while at work (across all faiths) but this will be much harder to justify in light of the Eweida case. Indeed, the court said that it was not just Ms Eweida's desire to manifest her belief that required protection but also her desire to communicate that belief to others."
Chris Fisher, employment partner, Mayer Brown

"The outcome of these cases will be welcomed by employers. The Court has emphasised that our national tribunals and courts have broad discretion in ensuring that a fair balance is struck between the rights of individuals on the one hand and the obligations of employers on the other, who, both as employers and as providers of goods, facilities and services, must not discriminate against individuals or groups identified by reference to any protected characteristic. In addressing difficult and sensitive issues of this kind, employers need to ensure that their response is proportionate, based on compelling considerations (for example, health and safety) and not excessive to resolving the problem in question."

"We are seeing an increasing number of cases where employees are alleging religious discrimination by their employers. Although today's decision is helpful, such claims will not go away. In every case, careful consideration of the issues and consultation with the employee will be necessary, to minimise the risk of discrimination arising. The good news is that there will be no need to amend the Equality Act as a result of today's decision."
Rachel Dineley, employment partner and head of the employment & pension group's equality and discrimination unit, DAC Beachcroft