Ms Eweida was a British Airways check-in desk worker. Her employer instructed Ms Eweida, who was a practicing Christian, to remove a crucifix she wore around her neck at work, as it conflicted with corporate uniform policy. Ms Chaplin was a nurse whose employer asked her to remove the crucifix she wore at work on health and safety grounds. She claimed that her subsequent transfer to a non-nursing role upon her refusal to remove the cross was discriminatory.

In these first two cases, the Court considered that the women’s right to manifest their religion had been interfered with. As, in Ms Eweida’s case, the interference was not attributable to the state, the Court first had to address whether her right to manifest her faith had been given enough protection in United Kingdom law, which contained no specific provisions concerning the wearing of religious symbols at work. As Ms Eweida’s case had already been through detailed consideration by UK courts, the lack of statutory provision therefore did not of itself mean that a breach of her right to religious freedom had occurred. Ultimately, however, the Court ruled that a fair balance between Ms Eweida’s right to manifest her religious belief and her employer’s right to present a certain corporate image had not been struck. The Court observed that items, such as turbans and hijabs, were permitted under the uniform code and had no negative impact on BA’s image. Furthermore, the dress policy had been amended to permit the wearing of crosses. Thus the Court considered that the previous ban had not been crucially important to the employer. By majority, it ruled that Ms Eweida’s Article 9 ECHR right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion had been breached.

In Ms Chaplin’s case, however, the Court ruled that her employer’s insistence that she remove the crucifix was not disproportionate and that the interference with her religious rights was necessary. Her Article 9 rights had not, therefore, been breached. Ms Ladele was a Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages and Mr McFarlane was a Relate counsellor. Both were practicing Christians who were dismissed from their jobs as they refused to provide services to same-sex couples on religious grounds. In Ms Ladele and Mr McFarlane’s cases, the Court considered that their employers’ policies to promote equal opportunities and to compel employees to act in a non-discriminatory way had the legitimate aim of upholding the rights of persons, such those in same-sex relationships, whose rights were also protected by the Convention.

The Court held that authorities had a wide margin of appreciation when balancing competing Convention rights. It held that neither applicant’s rights had been breached. Note: The Equality and Human Rights Commission in GB has issued two documents: - 'Employer Guidance Download: Religion or Belief in the workplace: a guide for employers following recent European Court of Human Rights judgments'; and - 'Legal Explanation Download: Religion or Belief in the workplace: an explanation of recent European Court of Human Rights judgments' 34 Plus Employer Question and Answers: http://bit.ly/12IKhUr