This judgement of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on alleged breaches of Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by four British nationals has been widely reported and have a long history before the UK courts before this decision was issued.

Ms Eweida worked at the check-in desk for British airways. She wore a cross around her neck as a symbol of her Christian beliefs. She was told to remove it because it was in conflict with the corporate uniform policy but refused, although BA later changed its policy on religious symbols in the workplace.

Hers was the only successful case of the four before the court:

"... the Court has reached the conclusion in the present case that a fair balance was not struck. On one side of the scales was Ms Eweida’s desire to manifest her religious belief. As previously noted, this is a fundamental right: because a healthy democratic society needs to tolerate and sustain pluralism and diversity; but also because of the value to an individual who has made religion a central tenet of his or her life to be able to communicate that belief to others. On the other side of the scales was the employer’s wish to project a certain corporate image. The Court considers that, while this aim was undoubtedly legitimate, the domestic courts accorded it too much weight. Ms Eweida’s cross was discreet and cannot have detracted from her professional appearance. There was no evidence that the wearing of other, previously authorised, items of religious clothing, such as turbans and hijabs, by other employees, had any negative impact on British Airways’ brand or image. Moreover, the fact that the company was able to amend the uniform code to allow for the visible wearing of religious symbolic jewellery demonstrates that the earlier prohibition was not of crucial importance."

A second case (Ms Chaplin) involving the wearing of a cross in the workplace was not successful from the claimant's point of view. She was a nurse who was asked to remove her cross for health and safety reasons. She claimed her move to a non-nursing position was discriminatory but the ECtHR found the decision necessary and proportionate and therefore held there was no breach of the Convention.

The other two cases involved practicing Christians who refused to provide services to same-sex couples. Both lost their jobs. Neither was held to be a breach of their Convention rights - employers have to balance rights between employees who hold certain beliefs and those in receipt of services who have the right not to be discriminated against due to protected social characteristics that, in these cases, offended the employees concerned to the extent that they felt they could not offer the services because they conflicted with their religious beliefs. As the ECtHR said in its judgement, "The Court generally allows the national authorities a wide margin of appreciation when it comes to striking a balance between competing Convention rights..."

These cases are very fact-specific and employers should be careful of reading too much into any of them - any future examples are likely to be similarly fact-specific. 
http://bit.ly/VuwAYL