Religion and belief discrimination

Headscarf ban at work was not direct discrimination

An employer’s ban on staff wearing religious, political or philosophical symbols while on duty (in this instance an Islamic headscarf) was not direct discrimination. And even if it was, it could be justified as a ‘genuine and determining occupational requirement’, according to a preliminary opinion from the European Court of Justice.
Achbita v G4S Secure Solutions NV

Proper and efficient use of money in public sector – philosophical belief?

Can it really be true that such a notion can be a protected philosophical belief? Well, it might be.
Harron v Chief Constable of Dorset Police

Disciplining employee for imposing religious views wasn’t discriminatory

An employer’s decision to discipline a Christian senior manager for imposing her religious views on a Muslim junior employee was neither direct discrimination nor harassment. The tribunal hearing the case had correctly drawn a distinction between instances where religion is the reason for the treatment and where it is merely the context.
Wasteney v East London NHS Foundation Trust

Political views of party activist accepted as ‘philosophical belief’

A Labour party activist’s belief in ‘democratic socialism’ could amount to a philosophical belief for the purpose of bringing a discrimination claim under the Equality Act 2010.
Olivier v Department of Work and Pensions

Requiring Christian to work on Sundays was justified

Requiring a committed Christian to work on a Sunday on an occasional basis in accordance with her contract of employment was objectively justified and did not discriminate against her because of her religion and belief.
Mba v London Borough of Merton

Christian employees’ rights to manifest their religion

Of four employees who complained to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) that UK law failed to protect their right to manifest their religion in the workplace, only one – Ms Eweida – has won her case, and that was on narrow grounds. The court found little inconsistency between the application of UK law and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Eweida v the UK
  • «
  •  Start 
  •  Prev 
  •  1 
  •  2 
  •  3 
  •  4 
  •  Next 
  •  End 
  • »

Page 1 of 4