The European Court has now considered a number of cases about the manifestation of religious beliefs at work: Eweida, Chaplin, Ladele and McFarlane[1].

The cases of Eweida[2] and Chaplin concerned the issue of wearing jewellery of religious significance, in both cases a cross. Ms Eweida worked for British Airways and Ms Chaplin  was a geriatric nurse. In both cases the English courts had held that there was no breach of Article 9 because the bans were justified.

In the case of Ladele,^[3]  and  McFarlane, [4] employees complained that they were being discriminated against because they were required to provide services to same-sex couples which inconsistent with their own religious beliefs. Ms Ladele was a civil registrar, Mr McFarlane was a counsellor. In both cases, they lost before the English courts because the courts had to balance the employer’s own obligation to provide a service which did not discriminate against people on grounds of sexuality.

The European Court considered these cases together. The Court  held that there was no breach of Article 9 in the cases of Ms Ladele or Mr McFarlane: the employers were entitled to seek not to discriminate against same-sex couples, as this was itself an important interest protected by the Convention. However, a different balance applied in the cases of wearing a cross at work. There was a breach of Article 9 in the case of Ms Eweida: her right to manifest her religion was more important than the employer’s wish to project a corporate image, especially as the employer had allowed other religious clothing such as turbans and hijabs. But there was no breach in the case of Ms Chaplin: the importance of being allowed to manifest her religion was outweighed by the need for health and safety on a hospital ward, which was the basis for not allowing jewellery.

The Equality Act 2010 now provides more  of a one-stop shop for anti-discrimination legislation. However, here as well the balance will have to be struck between the rights of those affected and the need to prevent discrimination. The Convention rights will have to be taken into account, so the balancing exercise to be struck in respect of them will remain extremely relevant – and these cases suggest that the courts will have to be slightly more accommodating.