“Fatim Kurji considers the European Court of Human Rights’ verdict in the case of Eweida & Others v The United Kingdom [2013] IRLR 231.”
No. 5 Chambers, 18th March 2013
Source: www.no5.com
“In this case, a member of the Union brought various claims of harassment related to his ‘race, religion or belief’ under section 57 of the Equality Act 2010. The wide ranging allegations made by the Claimant arose, in essence, from the way in which Union had handled the Israel/Palestine debate. For example, claims arose from motions debated at the Union’s congress on proposals for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions and related questions. The Claimant alleged that the Union was guilty of ‘institutional anti-Semitism’ which he alleged constituted harassment of him as a Jewish member of the Union.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 16th April 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“The case of Fraser v University and College Union concerned a number of claims of harassment by the Claimant against the Respondent union of which he was a member, under section 57 of the Equality Act 2010. The complaints were based on or stemmed from motions debated at the Respondent’s Congress (annual conference) in the years 2007 to 2011 on proposals for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.”
Employment Law Blog, 3rd April 2013
Source: www.employment11kbw.com
Regina (Dowsett) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] EWHC 687 (Admin); [2013] WLR (D) 126
“The Secretary of State’s policy that male prisoners could not normally object to “rub-down” searches being conducted by a female prison officer except on genuine religious or cultural grounds was not discriminatory on grounds of sex or lack of religion. The exceptions to the policy were a proportionate way of dealing with genuine objections by male prisoners to being searched by female officers and the width of the exceptions to the policy did not lead to an unacceptable risk of unlawful decision-making.”
WLR Daily, 27th March 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The House of Lords voted on Monday to outlaw discrimination against people on the basis of their caste.”
The Guardian, 5th March 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has found that the use of bad language was evidently merely an expression of bad temper and not intended to express hostility to the Pope or Catholicism and that it did not constitute harassment within the meaning of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 20th February 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Equality and Human Rights Commission has published new guidance today to help employers and employees deal with the expression of religion or belief at work and avoid conflict and costly court cases.”
14th February 2013
Source: www.equalityhumanrights.com
“An employment tribunal hearing the first claim for unfair dismissal on the grounds of caste discrimination has collapsed after information handed to the judge by police led the judge to recuse herself from the case.”
The Guardian, 14th February 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Following today’s European Court of Human Rights judgment in Eweida and Others v the United Kingdom, David Renton analyses the how the fine balance between religious freedom and avoiding discrimination can be struck.”
Garden Court Chambers Blog. 15th January 2013
Source: www.gclaw.wordpress.com
“It’s good that the ECHR clarified issues about freedom of religion in the UK. But they got it wrong in the case of Ladele.”
The Guardian, 17th January 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Councils can expect the backing of the legal system if they insist that employees conduct civil partnerships.”
The Guardian, 16th January 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The conclusion reached by the European court of human rights in Christian discrimination cases is no surprise but the principle is difficult to apply.”
The Guardian, 15th January 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Nadia Eweida has succeeded in her claim that the UK breached her right to manifest her religion under article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Readers may remember that she worked for British Airways, and refused to abide by its uniform policy, insisting on wearing a cross visible to customers. By a majority of five to two (the dissenters including the Court’s British former President, Sir Nicolas Bratza), the judges of the European Court of Human Rights found that the English court that dismissed her religious discrimination and human rights claim at national level, the Court of Appeal, gave too much weight to BA’s corporate aims and not enough to Ms Eweida’s desire to manifest her religion by wearing her cross. In consequence, the UK breached its ‘positive obligation’ to protect her right to manifest her religion.”
Head of Legal, 15th January 2013
Source: www.headoflegal.com
“The Strasbourg Court has today [15 January] come up with something of a mixed message in relation to religion at work. They have voted that there is a right to manifest individual faith by wearing religious adornments but not by objecting to practices that are protected by anti-discrimination legislation.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 15th January 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“After seven years of legal appeals and accusations that Christians are being persecuted for their beliefs, the European court of human rights has ruled that a British Airways check-in operator should not have been prevented from wearing a cross at work.”
The Guardian, 15th January 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“A British Airways check-in worker’s right to express her religion was unfairly restricted when she was prevented from wearing a cross at work, the European court of human rights (ECHR) has ruled.”
The Guardian, 15th January 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“A tribunal’s refusal to allow the constructive dismissal claim of a Christian care worker who was required to work on Sundays does not establish that Sunday working will never amount to indirect religious discrimination, an expert has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 14th January 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“Mba v London Borough Of Merton (Religion or Belief Discrimination) [2012] UKEAT 0332/12/1312 (13 December 2012). The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed the appeal of a Christian care worker against the decision of an Employment Tribunal that she was not constructively dismissed as a result of her refusal to work on Sundays.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 10th January 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Written rulings should be published when tribunals give judgments in order to properly inform public debate.”
The Guardian, 10th Janaury 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The introduction of the Equality Act 2010 was a landmark in non-discrimination law, bringing together (and making some amendments to) a myriad of different statutory regimes covering various types of protected characteristics. However, such is the nature of litigation, that very little appellate case law has, as yet, had cause to consider the provisions of the Equality Act in any detail. As a result, the very substantial developments which have taken or are taking place recently in the equalities field have tended to arise out of the previous legal regimes, or related regimes such as the European Convention on Human Rights.”
Full story (PDF)
11 KBW, 20th December 2012
Source: www.11kbw.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025