## Facts

- Four British Christian employees alleged that workplace requirements interfered with their ability to manifest religion, invoking Article 9 and, in some claims, Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- Nadia Eweida, a British Airways check-in clerk, was required by a uniform policy to conceal religious jewelry; she was sent home and placed on unpaid leave for refusing to hide a small cross, later reinstated after the policy changed but not compensated for lost pay.
- Shirley Chaplin, an NHS nursing sister, was required by a hospital uniform rule based on health-and-safety guidance to remove necklaces; after refusing to remove a crucifix necklace, she was reassigned to a non-clinical role.
- Lillian Ladele, a local authority registrar, refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership registrations required by her employer’s non-discrimination policy; she was disciplined and removed from her registrar duties.
- Gary McFarlane, a counsellor for a charity with an equal opportunities policy, would not assure his employer he would provide psycho-sexual therapy to same-sex couples; he was dismissed.
- All four applicants had lost in domestic proceedings, then filed applications to the European Court of Human Rights, which decided admissibility and merits together.

## Issues

1. Whether each employer’s measures amounted to an interference with the applicants’ Article 9 right to manifest religion in the workplace, notwithstanding the theoretical ability to resign.
2. If there was interference, whether it was justified as necessary in a democratic society to pursue legitimate aims such as corporate image, health and safety, or protection of others’ rights, including protection from sexual-orientation discrimination.
3. Whether the facts disclosed discrimination contrary to Article 14 taken with Article 9.

## Decision

- The court held that workplace limits on religious manifestation can constitute an interference with Article 9 even if the employee could resign; entering employment does not waive Article 9 rights.
- Eweida: violation of Article 9; the domestic balance gave excessive weight to corporate image and insufficient weight to her desire to wear a discreet cross; no separate examination of Article 14 was required.
- Chaplin: no violation of Article 9; the restriction was justified by patient and staff safety in a clinical setting; the Article 14 complaint was inadmissible.
- Ladele: no violation of Article 14 taken with Article 9; requiring all registrars to provide services without sexual-orientation discrimination was a weighty aim and the domestic balance was acceptable.
- McFarlane: no violation of Article 14 taken with Article 9; enforcing an equal-opportunities policy in counselling services and avoiding uncertainty about equal treatment justified the employer’s response.
- Damages and costs were awarded only to Eweida.

## Legal Principles

- Article 9 protects both belief and its manifestation; employment-related restrictions may interfere with Article 9 even where the employee could seek other work.
- A contract of employment does not amount to a waiver of the right to manifest religion; the “right to resign” is not determinative.
- Interferences with Article 9 must pursue a legitimate aim and be proportionate; the inquiry focuses on whether domestic authorities struck a fair balance.
- Corporate image may be a legitimate aim, but it may carry limited weight where the religious symbol is discreet and does not materially affect professional presentation.
- Health-and-safety requirements in clinical settings may justify restrictions on religious items where risk assessments and uniform rules are not arbitrary.
- Where religious objections conflict with others’ rights to receive non-discriminatory public or professional services, especially regarding sexual orientation, states are afforded a margin of appreciation and may lawfully refuse exemptions to protect equal access.

## Conclusion

The court confirmed that Article 9 applies meaningfully at work and requires proportionality review rather than reliance on an employee’s ability to resign; it found a disproportionate interference in a cross-display ban grounded mainly in corporate image, while upholding restrictions driven by patient safety and by employers’ and public authorities’ duties to provide services without sexual-orientation discrimination.


Eweida & Others v. United Kingdom, Apps. Nos. 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10, 36516/10 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2013)