The EcHR has today handed down its' Judgment in the co-joined appeals of Ladele, MacFarlane, Eweida and Chaplin.
The cases all related to an individuals' expression of their religious beliefs in the workplace and the extent to which this interfered with the rights of others. Under Article 9 ECHR, there is a qualified right to manifest one's religion or beliefs.
EcHR held that, as a general principle, where an individual's religious observance impinges on the rights of others, some restrictions can be made. The employer must balance the rights of an employee to manifest their religious belief against the freedoms and rights of others.
The appeal on Eweida (the wearing of a cross as a member of check-in staff for BA) was upheld as the EcHR found that whilst it was a legitimate aim for BA to wish to protect its' corporate image through having in place a uniform policy, it was not proportionate to restrict Ms Eweida from wearing her cross in the circumstances.
The appeal on Chaplin (wearing of a cross in a hospital) was not
upheld as the hospital had a legitimate aim - to protect health and
safety in a hospital ward - in its' uniform policy and this was
'inherently' of much greater importance. This outweighed Ms
Chaplin's rights to manifest her religion.
The appeals on Ladele (Registrar disciplined for refusing to
conduct civil partnerships) and Macfarlane (Relate counsellor
disciplined for refusing to conduct counselling for same sex
couples) were not upheld. The policies of the employers - to
promote equal opportunities and to require employees to act in a
way which did not discriminate against others - had a legitimate
aim of securing the rights of others and the employer's
treatment of the applicants was proportionate to that aim.
The Court stressed that differences in treatment based on sexual orientation require particularly serious reasons by way of justification.
When considering the rights of an employee to manifest his or her religious beliefs, an employer must always consider and evidence its' aim in prohibiting certain conduct within the workplace and then go onto weigh in the balance the discriminatory effect of such a prohibition on the individual as against the intended aim.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.