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 3 | Version 4 |
---|---|
Christian in BA cross ban appeal | Christian in BA cross ban appeal |
(about 5 hours 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 discriminate against her and claims £120,000 in damages and lost wages. | |
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. |
The appeal judges have reserved their decision to a later, unspecified date. | |
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. |
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. |
'Hijabs and bangles' | |
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. | 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. |
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 EAT ruling was wrong because it concluded any discrimination must disadvantage Christians in general. |
She told the court the regulations did not require proof Christians as a whole would wish to wear a cross visibly, rather her client was placed under a disadvantage by not being allowed to. | |
But Ingrid Simler QC, counsel for BA, told the court the tribunal was right to dismiss Ms Eweida's claim. | |
She said BA's "flexible and sensitive" policy, which applied to 30,000 staff, did allow the wearing of a religious or any other artefact if it was concealed. | |
Ms Eweida was also offered work in a non-uniform post so that she could wear her cross visibly, but turned it down. |