News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


Nadia Eweida to fight British Airways at Court of Appeal today


A devout Christian battling an airline over her right to wear a cross at work will take her case to the Court of Appeal today.

Nadia Eweida, from Strawberry Hill, was told in 2006 she could not wear the Christian symbol around her neck while working at Heathrow Airport as a check-in operator for British Airways (BA).

Miss Eweida, of Strawberry Hill Close, lost an employment tribunal but was later granted permission to take her case to the Court of Appeal and the case will begin this morning.

The airport worker, who was sent home in September 2006 and was off work without pay until February 2007, was told in September she will not be protected from the spiralling costs of her discrimination case - and had a £25,000 on costs withdrawn - but vowed to continue anyway.

Human rights organisation Liberty have supported Miss Eweida and will represent her at the hearing, being held at the Royal Courts of Justice.

Twickenham MP Vince Cable and senior MPs David Davis and John Reid are expected to turn up and offer their support.

Corinna Ferguson, legal officer for Liberty, said: “This woman's cross was as important to her as a turban or hijab to other people in our country.

“British Airways sensibly changed the policy but unfortunately didn't concede the case which has left a dangerous precedent in the case law what we intend to overturn.

“All that we are seeking for everyone in Britain is freedom of thought, conscience and religion and equal treatment under the law.”

Liberty has also conducted a poll of British Christians which reveals 86 per cent of those polled disagree with BA’s decision to ask Miss Eweida to cover up her cross and 80 per cent agree the case sets a dangerous precedent in discriminating on the basis of religion.


Comments(6)

gertrude grendal says...
10:00am Tue 19 Jan 10

This poor woman will get hardly any sympathy from her own countrymen(women) and fellow Christians. Her cause is NOT politically correct. If she wore a burkah, the liberals would all be demanding her right to wear it at work.

lyndzndan says...
9:56pm Tue 19 Jan 10

why cant she wear a cross??? if she was Indian and wore Indian clothes she wouldn't have been treated like this. what is England coming to!!!!!

bandit63 says...
1:00pm Wed 20 Jan 10

read this article and find out the REAL reasons why this woman was suspended - the cross issue is a minor one. She and her advisors have put up a very good smoke screen. Her behaviour was not acceptable and I'm glad I didn't work with her
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/commentisfree/
2008/jan/17/acrossto
bear

Denbrowne says...
5:44pm Wed 20 Jan 10

Thank you bandit63 for bringing some reality into this ... unlike the reporter: surely its rather important that she's after a staggering £120k compensation?! This isn't about some spiritual matter of principle. I don't understand the need to import & flaunt your religion at work. Anyway I seem to recall the Bible warning against conspicuous displays of faith.

MacGregor says...
10:41pm Wed 20 Jan 10

For another newspaper report - to counterbalance the Left-learning Guardian - check out The Daily Telegraph with this quote from former home secretary John Reid:
"Outside the court Dr Reid, the Labour MP, said: "It sends a signal that Christians don't enjoy the same protections under the law as those from other religions whose dress requirements are accommodated in the workplace. "That is not the case. If such a signal is sent out it will play into the hands of extremists. This woman's cross was as important to her as the hijab or turban are to others"."
http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/news/7028261/
BA-wrong-to-ban-Chri
stian-from-wearing-c
ross-because-it-play
s-into-extremists-ha
nds.html

bandit63 says...
11:52am Thu 21 Jan 10

So, the tribunal, which I was directly quoting, is left leaning as well? Give me a break. see my comments on the other article. I'm a christian and a fairly strong believer. However, like a TRUE christian, I show this by my actions and the way I live my life, not with baubbles and trinkets.

By the way, I am a telegraph reader, but this debate has got heated over one apparently silly incident, which the rest of the BA staff lived with very happily. The non compliance with a uniform policy, which she AGREED to by signing a contract of employment, was obviously the last straw for BA in a long line of issues with a very difficult person.

This plays into the hands of extremists? TOSH. The fact that she was pushing her views forcefully at work onto others and the way she conducted herself is much more likley to drive people to extremism. Anyway, BA have already chnaged the policy so what si the point in dragging this out . Why does she need £120k if this is a matter of principle - no one on any disucssion baord has yet answered that question.


Case: Nadia Eweida will be at the Court of Appeal today Case: Nadia Eweida will be at the Court of Appeal today

Most popular


Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses