This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/england/london/8467132.stm

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Christian appeals BA cross ruling Christian in BA cross ban appeal
(about 4 hours later)
A Christian British Airways (BA) employee is appealing against a ruling which allowed the airline to stop her wearing a cross at work. A Christian British Airways (BA) employee has begun her appeal against a ruling which allowed the airline to stop her wearing a cross at work.
Nadia Eweida, 57, wants to overturn a ruling that BA did not religiously discriminate against her in 2006. Nadia Eweida, 57, wants the Court of Appeal to overturn a ruling that BA did not religiously discriminate against her in 2006.
Miss Eweida, of Twickenham in south-west London, has returned to work for BA after the firm changed its uniform policy. Miss Eweida, of Twickenham, south-west London, returned to work for BA after the firm changed its uniform policy.
Her case at the Court of Appeal is due to begin on Tuesday. She is claiming £120,000 in damages and lost wages.
She wants the court to overturn a November 2008 decision by the Employment Appeal Tribunal that she was not a victim of religious discrimination. She wants the court to overturn a November 2008 decision by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) that she was not a victim of religious discrimination.
Uniform policyUniform policy
The tribunal was told she went home in September 2006 after failing to reach a compromise with managers over the visible display of the plain silver cross on a chain around her neck.The tribunal was told she went home in September 2006 after failing to reach a compromise with managers over the visible display of the plain silver cross on a chain around her neck.
The following year, the airline changed its uniform policy and Miss Eweida, a Pentecostal Christian who works in customer services at Terminal 5 at Heathrow Airport, returned to work.The following year, the airline changed its uniform policy and Miss Eweida, a Pentecostal Christian who works in customer services at Terminal 5 at Heathrow Airport, returned to work.
But she was unpaid during her absence, and claims BA should admit its previous policy was unlawful and pay her around £120,000 in damages and lost wages.But she was unpaid during her absence, 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.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.
Miss Eweida, who is not eligible for legal aid, will be represented by lawyers instructed by human rights group Liberty at the hearing before Lord Justice Sedley, Lord Justice Carnwath and Lady Justice Smith. 'Fell into error'
Her counsel, Karon Monaghan QC, told the Court of Appeal the central issue was whether the EAT correctly addressed the question of "particular disadvantage".
"We say that the EAT fell into error when it concluded that it was necessary to establish a group disadvantage among Christians generally for the purposes of the indirect discrimination provisions.
She said it was sufficient for Miss Eweida to show - as she did - that she was placed under a particular disadvantage arising from her religious beliefs.
Miss Eweida, who is not eligible for legal aid, is being represented by lawyers instructed by human rights group Liberty at the hearing before Lord Justice Sedley, Lord Justice Carnwath and Lady Justice Smith.
The case continues.