British Airways Christian employee Nadia Eweida wins case.

[denphone]

A British Airways employee suffered discrimination at work over her Christian beliefs, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21025332

Mmmmm.....

I am glad she won it, as I thought BA were being petty, but it's strange that someone who brought a similar case lost.

She took her case to the European Court of Human Rights after BA made her stop wearing a cross.

Judges ruled that the rights of three other Christians had not been violated by their employers.

The other cases involved nurse Shirley Chaplin, 57, whose employer also stopped her wearing necklaces with a cross, Gary McFarlane, 51 - a marriage counsellor fired after saying he might object to giving sex therapy advice to gay couples - and registrar Lillian Ladele, who was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies.

All four lost separate employment tribunals relating to their beliefs and made individual applications to the court, but their cases are being heard together.

I await the reaction some of our posters who think that the ECHR is the spawn of Satan to this ruling.

Perhaps the sex therapist should have said I have no idea how to suck .......upto the status quo lol . I can kinda understand the registrar not winning but the crosses on a necklace is just wrong unless of course it follows all religions ie a hindu not allowed to wear a bindi or other jewelry

[denphone]

Yes indeed l am glad that she won the case as even though things have come a long way to a certain extent in the last few years there is still quite a lot of discrimination still out there.

Actually i think the judgement in all cases is about right ,i can fully understand why the other 3 cases lost .A registrar should not be able to pick and choose what people they marry ,Someone who is employed as a relationship counselor cannot pick and choose who they give advice to ,and a hospital has a duty of care to it's employees and nurses or other employees in contact with patients should not be wearing dangly jewelry where patients can grab it

The guy refused to give sex therapy advice to gay couples which if he was a straight man he would have no understanding of surely?

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

The guy refused to give sex therapy advice to gay couples which if he was a straight man he would have no understanding of surely?

He was a relationship counselor so if he is going to undertake such a role then he should have been prepared .Reminds me of a labourer i once had when i was a window fitter , who upon turning up for work on his first day informed that he did not want to go up ladders because he was scared of heights ,i sent him home

Originally Posted by martyh

He was a relationship counselor so if he is going to undertake such a role then he should have been prepared .Reminds me of a labourer i once had when i was a window fitter , who upon turning up for work on his first day informed that he did not want to go up ladders because he was scared of heights ,i sent him home

yes but he refused to give sex advice not relationship advice perfectly reasonable imo


Anyway on a lighter note Milton Jones just posted on facebook "Everyone at work used to wear a cross when I was a sniper"

Originally Posted by Hugh

Mmmmm.....

I am glad she won it, as I thought BA were being petty, but it's strange that someone who brought a similar case lost.

Depends if there was good reason for the organisation to ban them. One of them was a NHS worker and needed to remove it for health and safety whilst another was a counsellor whose job it is to provide support to couples. In those cases you can understand how their request got in the way of their ability to do their job effectively.

Sorry, Damien, I wasn't clear - I was referring to the other cross case.

They are explained in more detail here - BBC

Originally Posted by Hugh

Sorry, Damien, I wasn't clear - I was referring to the other cross case.

They are explained in more detail here - BBC

In the case of the other cross case i would say that is still correct as the hospital did discuss other ways for the nurse to continue wearing it but the nurse refused so i would say she was being very unreasonable

I would agree with you there, marty.

The problem is that for the hospital in the case of Shirley Chaplin they where probably forced into a decision to ban necklaces and other similar items of jewelry because a patient had ripped one off a nurse/doctor and the hospital was sued,forcing the hospital to make a ,what on the face of it is a ridiculous rule

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Mmmmm.....

I am glad she won it, as I thought BA were being petty, but it's strange that someone who brought a similar case lost.



I await the reaction some of our posters who think that the ECHR is the spawn of Satan to this ruling.

Once every blue moon the ECHR get it right.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

I would think even if they'd not been sued it's the percieved risk in these litigious times.

Quite , there is probably, somewhere, an army of highly paid individuals going around advising hospitals ,schools and corporations about risks not covered in normal H&S but would most likely result in litigation against them especially if it was put in the claimants mind by an ambulance chasing lawyer