We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. If you continue to use this site, we'll assume you're happy with this. Alternatively, click here to find out how to manage these cookies

hide cookie message
Contact Forum Editor

Send an email to our Forum Editor:


PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the Forum Editor know who sent the message. Both your name and email address will not be used for any other purpose.

Speakers Corner


It's free to register, to post a question or to start / join a discussion


 

she's won her case


finerty

Likes # 0

she's won her case-and about time too

Like this post
WhiteTruckMan

Likes # 0

I agree, before the lawyers could rack up even more fees. Apparently awarded 32k euros (cant find the euro symbol on my old laptop). 2k for her, 30k for the lawyers.

WTM

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

"British Airways had already looked again at its policy and decided that the wearing of crosses would be allowed."

In 2007.

As you say, there was no case to win as far as BA was concerned.

Like this post
finerty

Likes # 0

When BA decided that crosses should'nt be worn did it also decide that Seik bangles should not be worn or the hindu elsatic band should not be worn or the muslim hajib should not be worn.............

Regardles of the practicality of symbols of faith and human rights, BA made a very wrong decision at the time when it decided to suspend an individual without pay for wearing a cross. Then the audacity to change its policy a year later. Hence this plicy could chop and change however BA decides sees fit to discriminate.

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

finerty

A few proper facts are always a good idea.

BA didn't decide that crosses shouldn't be worn. The company uniform policy was that no jewellery should be worn outside the uniform, and Nadia Eweida wore her necklace outside her uniform. She did it, she said, "to express my faith so that other people will know that Jesus loves them"

BA asked her to wear the cross inside her uniform, but she refused. She also refused the offer of another job within the company where she would not have to cover the cross.

The company had operated the no jewellery outside uniforms policy for years without anyone else objecting. Sikh and Muslim employees are permitted to wear religious garments to work because it would be impractical to ask them to cover the garments up.

Mrs Eweida lost her tribunal case, and she also lost her appeal for a cost-capping order. She subsequently appealed on substantive grounds, and that appeal also failed. The supreme court refused to hear her case.

The European Court finally ruled that there had not been a fair balance between her rights and BA's desire to have a particular corporate image.

It's worth noting that this woman, who has been so outspoken about her own human rights, is the same woman who told a gay work colleague that he could still be "redeemed".

Like this post
Quickbeam

Likes # 0

Smile

Well it made me smile...

Like this post
spuds

Likes # 0

"The European Court finally ruled that there had not been a fair balance between her rights and BA's desire to have a particular corporate image"

So who is right, the European Court or all the other courts who thought or expressed that there was no case to answer, and this woman was wasting her own and the courts time?.

Like this post

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.



IDG UK Sites

Best Black Friday 2014 tech deals UK: Get bargains on phones, tablets, laptops and more this Black...

IDG UK Sites

Tomorrow's World today (or next year)

IDG UK Sites

25 iOS apps turn (Red) for World AIDS Day campaign

IDG UK Sites

Advanced tips for Mac OS X Yosemite: use Yosemite like an expert - 5 new tips added