Eweida and others v United Kingdom (Applications nos. 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10 and 36516/10)

Four UK Christians claimed their rights to manifest religion were violated by employers. The ECHR found a violation for an airline employee prevented from wearing a cross, but not for a nurse, a registrar, or a counsellor whose beliefs conflicted with employer duties.

Facts

The case concerned four separate applications brought by British nationals who were devout Christians. They alleged that domestic law failed to protect their right to manifest their religion, in breach of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14.

First Applicant (Ms Eweida)

Ms Eweida was a British Airways (BA) employee who was asked to cover a small silver cross she wore on a necklace, as it breached BA’s uniform policy. She refused on religious grounds and was sent home without pay. The policy was later changed, but BA refused to compensate her for the period of her absence.

Second Applicant (Ms Chaplin)

Ms Chaplin, a nurse in a geriatric ward at a public hospital, was told she could not wear her crucifix necklace due to health and safety concerns. She refused to remove it and was moved to a non-nursing temporary role before she eventually resigned.

Third Applicant (Ms Ladele)

Ms Ladele was a registrar for the London Borough of Islington. Following the introduction of civil partnerships for same-sex couples, she refused to conduct such ceremonies as she believed they were contrary to God’s law. She was disciplined for gross misconduct for failing to comply with the council’s ‘Dignity for All’ equality and diversity policy.

Fourth Applicant (Mr McFarlane)

Mr McFarlane was a counsellor for Relate, a private organisation. He was dismissed for gross misconduct after stating he could not provide psycho-sexual counselling to same-sex couples due to his Christian beliefs, which he felt would conflict with his duties to provide such therapy.

Issues

The central legal issue was whether the restrictions imposed on the applicants’ freedom to manifest their religious beliefs constituted a violation of Article 9 ECHR. This required the Court to determine whether the interference was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim, and was ‘necessary in a democratic society’. The core of the analysis focused on the proportionality of the interference and the margin of appreciation afforded to the national authorities in balancing the competing rights and interests at stake.

Judgment

The Court delivered a landmark judgment, distinguishing between the different factual circumstances of the four applicants.

First Applicant (Ms Eweida) – Violation Found

The Court found that the domestic courts had accorded too much weight to British Airways’ desire to project a specific corporate image. The interference with Ms Eweida’s right to manifest her religion was not proportionate, as her cross was discreet and there was no evidence it had any negative impact on BA’s brand or image. The Court held that a fair balance had not been struck between the competing interests.

In the present case, the Court takes the view that a fair balance was not struck… On one side of the scales was Ms Eweida’s desire to manifest her religious belief… On the other side of the scales was the employer’s wish to project a particular corporate image. The Court considers that, while this aim was legitimate, the domestic courts accorded it too much weight.

Second Applicant (Ms Chaplin) – No Violation Found

In contrast to Ms Eweida’s case, the interference with Ms Chaplin’s right was justified. The employer’s reason for the ban—the protection of health and safety in a hospital setting—was deemed to be of a greater magnitude. The Court accepted that hospital managers were better placed than courts to make decisions about clinical safety.

…the reason for the ban, namely the protection of the health and safety of nurses and patients, was inherently of a greater magnitude than that which applied in respect of Ms Eweida… the hospital managers were better placed to make decisions about clinical safety than a court…

Third and Fourth Applicants (Ms Ladele and Mr McFarlane) – No Violation Found

The Court found no violation in the cases of Ms Ladele and Mr McFarlane. It emphasised that their employers’ actions were aimed at securing the rights of others, specifically the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation. The Court held that the State authorities had a wide margin of appreciation in striking a balance between an individual’s right to manifest their religion and the need to protect the rights of others, particularly in the context of public service delivery and employment policies aimed at preventing discrimination.

What was at stake was the need to ensure that the service provided by the local authority was not tainted by discrimination… the Court generally allows the national authorities a wide margin of appreciation when it comes to striking a balance between competing Convention rights.

Regarding Mr McFarlane, the court similarly reasoned:

…the employer’s action was intended to secure the implementation of its policy of providing a service without discrimination. The importance of this policy was also reflected in the legislation, which makes it unlawful to discriminate against any person on grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of a service.

Implications

The judgment is highly significant for its nuanced approach to Article 9 rights in the workplace. It clarifies that while the right to manifest one’s religion is protected, it is not absolute and can be subject to proportionate limitations. The decision distinguishes between interference based on corporate image (which requires strong justification) and interference based on significant countervailing interests such as public health and safety or the anti-discrimination rights of others. The cases of Ladele and McFarlane, in particular, establish that an employee’s manifestation of religious belief cannot unjustifiably impinge upon the rights of others or an employer’s legitimate policy of non-discrimination.

Verdict: Violation of Article 9 found in respect of the first applicant (Ms Eweida). No violation of Article 9 found in respect of the second, third, and fourth applicants (Ms Chaplin, Ms Ladele, and Mr McFarlane).

Source: Eweida and others v United Kingdom (Applications nos. 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10 and 36516/10)