All four claimants were practicing Christians. Two, Ms Eweida, who staffed a BA checking desk and Ms Chaplin, a geriatric nurse, were penalised for wearing a visible cross at work. Ms Ladele, a Registrar of births, marriages and deaths, and Mr McFarlane, a Relate counsellor, were dismissed for refusing to officiate over a civil partnership, or to counsel a gay couple.

The ECHR found in favour of Ms Eweida, concluding that her right to manifest her religion under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) had been infringed. A fair balance had not been struck between her desire to wear a small visible cross to communicate her belief to others, and BA’s desire to project a particular corporate image. Other BA workers had been allowed to wear items of religious significance such as turbans and hijabs without impacting negatively on that image. BA had since amended the uniform code to permit the visible wearing of religious symbolic jewellery, demonstrating that it was not an issue of great importance to them.

By contrast, Ms Chaplin lost her case because she had been asked to remove her cross for reasons of health and safety. The ECHR took the view that hospital managers were in a better position to judge issues of clinical safety than courts. Requiring her to remove the cross had not been disproportionate, and the interference with her freedom to manifest her religion was justified as necessary in a democratic society.

Ms Ladele and Mr McFarlane also lost their cases. The ECHR said the most important feature of these cases was that the employers’ policies — to promote equal opportunities and to require employees to act in a way that did not discriminate against others — had the legitimate aim of securing the rights of others, such as same sex couples, which were also protected under the Convention.

Differences in treatment based on sexual orientation need particularly serious justification, as same sex couples have the same needs for legal recognition and protection of their relationship as heterosexual couples. The ECHR said it has a wide discretion when it comes to striking a balance between the employer’s right to secure the rights of others and the claimants’ right to manifest their religion. Here the right balance had been struck by requiring the claimants to officiate at a civil partnership or to counsel a gay couple or else face dismissal, and no violation of the Convention had taken place.

Eweida and Others v The United Kingdom Applications nos. 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10 and 36516/10

A Christian mental health worker in charge of vulnerable adults was not subject to religious discrimination when dismissed for giving copies of the Bible to clients and visiting them outside of work unaccompanied (both of which were prohibited by the employer). Dismissing someone for proselytising (attempting to convert individuals to a faith) is not unlawful religious discrimination.

Chondol v Liverpool City Council UKEAT/0298/08