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 2 Version 3
Christian in BA cross ban appeal Christian in BA cross ban appeal
(about 1 hour later)
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.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 the Court of Appeal 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, south-west London, 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.
She is claiming £120,000 in damages and lost wages.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 (EAT) 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 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.
Hijabs and bangles
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, as she was unpaid during her absence, Miss Eweida 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.
'Fell into error' Her counsel, Karon Monaghan QC, told the Court of Appeal the EAT ruling was wrong because it concluded any discrimination must disadvantage Christians in general.
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.
Ms Monaghan said Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the 2003 Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations respected "highly personal and individual" religious beliefs and practices.Ms Monaghan said Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the 2003 Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations respected "highly personal and individual" religious beliefs and practices.
She told the court the regulations did not require Miss Eweida to prove Christians as a whole, Christians generally, or even a substantial proportion of Christians, wished or would wish to wear a cross visibly - just that any person of her particular religious belief, including her, was placed under a disadvantage by not being allowed to. She told the court the regulations did not require proof Christians as a whole would wish to wear a cross visibly, rather that her client was placed under a disadvantage by not being allowed to.
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.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.The case continues.