MOSCOW, January 15 - RAPSI, Ingrid Burke. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) held Tuesday that the projection of a certain corporate image isn’t a good enough reason to stifle the right of employees to freedom of religion. On the other hand, the Court held that certain interests – such as those of health and equal rights – can be balanced against freedom of religion when the latter threatens to impinge upon the former.

The Court considered the cases of four Christian Brits who felt for various reasons that their religious freedom had been stifled in the work place. Applicants included Nadia Eweida, b. 1951, a British Airways employee; Shirley Chaplin, b. 1955, a geriatrics nurse; Lilian Ladele, b. 1960, a Registrar of Births, Deaths, and Marriages; and Gary McFarlane, b. 1961, a sex/relationship counselor.

Both Eweida and Chaplin complained that they were prevented from wearing necklaces bearing Christian crosses while at work. Ladele and McFarlane complained that they were both fired for refusing to perform duties that – in their views – would have condoned homosexuality.

Cross jewelry

As a member of British Airways’ check-in staff, Eweida was required to abide by a dress code that specifically prohibited visible jewelry. Company rules stipulated that employees were required to seek specific permission to openly wear any item for religious purposes. Between 1999 and 2006, Eweida complied with the rules, tucking her cross necklace into her uniform while at work. In May 2006, she chose to wear the cross openly as a sign of religious devotion. In September of that same year, she was told not to return to work until she was willing to abide by the dress code. She returned to her position the following February once British Airways changed its rules, allowing employees to wear certain religious symbols openly.
Eweida launched a claim with the Employment Tribunal. The claim was rejected due to the fact that the wearing of a cross is voluntary rather than obligatory in Christianity, and thus she had failed to prove that British Airways uniform policies were generally disadvantageous to its Christian employees. All efforts to appeal were unsuccessful

Chaplin ran into trouble when new uniforms were introduced at her hospital in June 2007. At that point, nurses were required to wear V-necks, and Chaplin was asked to remove the cross from around her neck based on her employers’ health and sanitation concerns. In November 2009, she was transferred to a non-nursing position, which was phased out in July of the following year. She had worked at this particular hospital since 1989.
Chaplin too launched a complaint with the Employment Tribunal. Finding that the hospital had advanced legitimate health and sanitation concerns, the Tribunal rejected her claims. Based on the Eweida precedent, her attempts to appeal were unsuccessful.

Homosexuality concerns

After the UK’s Civil Partnership Act took effect in 2009, Ladele was informed that she would be required to perform civil partnership ceremonies for homosexual couples. Believing homosexuality to be repugnant to her Christian beliefs, Ladele refused and was threatened with termination.

McFarlane’s superiors and colleagues began to accuse him in 2007 of misconduct stemming from the fact that his religious views conflicted with his obligations in terms of working with homosexual couples. In March 2008 after the completion of a disciplinary investigation, McFarlane was fired for his failure to adhere to the company’s equal opportunities policies despite his vow to do so.

Like Eweida and Chaplin before them, Ladele and McFarlane turned to the Employment Tribunal. Both claims were rejected on appeal based on the theory that the applicants’ respective employers were entitled to expect both of them to carry out their duties, and furthermore that the employers were justified in refusing to accommodate personal views of employees that contradicted their “fundamental declared principles,” particularly those required by law.

Decision and reasoning of the Court

As a whole, the Court focused on the imperative of the freedom of religion, including the freedom to manifest such religious beliefs in the workplace. Still, the state is authorized to limit this freedom to some extent when religious observance threatens the rights of others.

The point is clearly elaborated in the Court’s discussion of Ladele’s claim, for instance: “the local authority’s policy aimed to secure the rights of others which are also protected under the Convention. The Court generally allows the national authorities a wide margin of appreciation when it comes to striking a balance between competing Convention rights.”

The court held in the cases of Eweida and Chaplin that both women had been prevented from manifesting their religious beliefs in the work place by virtue of the rules preventing both from wearing crosses.

The Court held that the UK failed to protect Eweida’s right to freedom of religion due to the fact that British Airlines’ interest in protecting a certain corporate image should not have outweighed Eweida’s right to manifest her religious beliefs.

On the other hand, the interest of the hospital in protecting the health and sanitation of its facilities was appropriately stacked against Chaplin’s right to manifest her religious beliefs. Thus the UK had not failed to protect her right to freedom of religion.

In the cases of Ladele and McFarlane, however, the state legitimately balanced the interests of these two individuals against the interests of promoting equal opportunities and preventing discrimination.

Thus the court held that the UK must pay Eweida 2,000 Euros for non-pecuniary damages and 30,000 Euros for costs incurred.

As this is a Chamber judgment, it is not yet final and is subject to appeal for the next three months. Any of the parties may request consideration of the case by the Grand Chamber. If the right to review is granted, the Grand Chamber will issue a final decision. If it is not granted, this Chamber judgment will become final.