British Airways employee sues over cross

[Mellyrose]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061014/ap_ ... hvBHNlYwM- (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061014/ap_on_bi_ge/britain_airline_crucifix;_ylt=AtLAVHQyqlNBwR43uDCn l2x34T0D;_ylu=X3oDMTA0cDJlYmhvBHNlYwM-)


Sat Oct 14, 6:24 AM ET

LONDON - A British Airways employee was suspended from work for refusing to remove a necklace bearing a Christian cross, a British newspaper reported Saturday.

Nadia Eweida, a check-in worker at Heathrow Airport, told the Daily Mail she was suing the airline for religious discrimination after being sent home for breaching BA's dress code.

"British Airways permits Muslims to wear a headscarf, Sikhs to wear a turban and other faiths religious apparel. Only Christians are forbidden to express their faith," Eweida was quoted as saying.

British Airways said company policy said employees must wear jewelry, including religious symbols, under their uniforms.

"This rule applies for all jewelry and religious symbols on chains and is not specific to the cross," the airline said in a statement.

"Other items such as turbans, hijabs and bangles can be worn as it is not practical for staff to conceal them beneath their uniforms."

Liberal Democrat lawmaker Vincent Cable, who represents Eweida's home area of Twickenham in west London, said it was "absolutely mind-boggling that Britain's flag-carrying airline could treat its employees in such a disgraceful and petty manner."

"Nadia is a devout Christian who was displaying her faith, but in a modest and totally unprovocative manner," he said.

"It is absolutely right that other religious minorities be allowed exemption from the dress code, but why can't a Christian be treated in the same way?"

Religious symbols and dress have been a hot topic of debate in Britain since former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw sparked controversy last week by saying he asks veiled Muslim women to uncover their faces when he meets with them.

[Tom_Turner]

Thanks for posting this Mel.

It's an absolutely pathetic decision on the part of BA.

[hiss srq]

I have to agree with the above. It is a sign of hypocracy really. BA is a world airline which means that they are going to have representation of faiths and cultures from every end of this planet and such. Lets be a little more fair here.

[Tom_Turner]

Hiding their political correctness behind a "dress code" - very clever; what bravery.

[T-Bird76]

Sorry but I disagree a bit, a scarf and a turban that don't have the Crescent of Islam on it can't be considered a religious symbol, they are norms in those cultures, they don't necessarily represent a belief. Indians were turbans and scarfs and many of them are not Muslim. What the reporter fails and the complainant fail to mention in the article is whether or not these Turban and scarf wearers are front line personal. If they are back office then BA's policy may be different. Again however a scarf or a turban is not a religious symbol a cross is. Sorry I'm with BA on this one, drop the cross.

[Tom_Turner]

Tommy, thats a good point, however I believe the turban is all about the Sikh religion - and if they've been worn in place of helmets when driving motor cycles, on construction sites and on the front lines of wars, I don't for a moment imagine those turbans are coming off - I believe it is a "religious imperative" and manifestation in DRESS.

To the extent some garments are not percieved as a "corportate logo" of their religion is an irrelevant point (in my mind), though BA may rest their case on that.

I don't think anyone (fortunately) on this board, or in the article, is confusing the Sikhs with Islamists.

Anyway, its all too absurd... I can just imagine what it going through the minds of (many) of the turban wearers and most certainly the headscarf brigade of BA employees while they undergo their sensitivity training for gays in BA's workplace... It really requires a suspension of disbelief...to imagine this is working out well.

And it symptomatic of decisions allowing muslim cab drivers not wanting to pick up fares with luggage that might contain alcohol to have different colored lights on thier cars, US muslim soldiers not to guard the Isreali embassy, Hassidic Jews to wear religious headgear in boot camp etc...

Just for the record, as BA is a world airline, I think they ought to allow all representations...

Its true enough though, I don't think the article I read touched on whether all the instances were back office or front line customer contacts...

Tom

[T-Bird76]

Reading this again I have to 100% side on BA. This isn't about religion its about jewelry being worn outside of the uniform and BA's policy as stated above says no jewelry can be worn outside of the uniform. So that means her cross, a diamond, and that dumb little charm a FA’s BF gave her. Its rather plain and simple, BA isn't telling her she can't wear it at all, she can wear it happily under her uniform. Hey she knows the rules about uniforms and she should follow them. Plus dangling jewelry can be a safety hazard as well. This lawsuit is bs. Break it down and I think you’ll agree with me.

[PhilDernerJr]

As long as there is no interference of any kind, I don't see why it would be a problem to wear a cross, or a turban, etc. (unless they forbid hat wearing in general).

There is a tasteful way to represent your religion as well. If all visible jewelry around the neck is forbidden, then I think BA is in the right. If tasteful sizes of jewelry are ok and some girl is wearing a gigantic hunk of medallion around her neck, then BA is in the right.

But we need to keep inmind that no form of Christianity REQUIRES one to wear a cross, unlike certain religions that actually do require the wearing of certain apparel.

Just having the cross is not wrong, though. If BA does not want that there, then they must prohibit all charms hanging on necklaces across the board.

[Tom_Turner]

Well, here is the question:

Why must an airline or any corporation abide by what any "religion" "requires"?

By that sort of policy, and thinking, Western societies are going to at some point become saturated with what, by comparison, more "strict" religions "require" for their adherents.

My point of view is if one is a walking manifestation of religious belief, that easily supercedes any small emblem of "belief" a Christian may choose to wear and it is therefore an injustice - though apparently a legal one in many instances.

In any case, I am not buying the trinket argument. Another British airline is alraedy on record as not wanting to "offend" adherents of non Christian religions by any appearance of Christianity - a point of view that is hardly reciprocated by those "offended" - and I am fairly certain that is what this is about - although I would guess the individual pursuing the issue here has clearly and deliberately chosen to risk her job to make the point.

[PhilDernerJr]

Anyone who is offended by the mere presence of Christianity has issues, and rules should not bemade to acommodate those people.

I think people should be allowed to represent their religion in any way that does not violate any pre-existing dress code, or interfere with their job. It's not abiding by religious requirements, it's allowing what the company would allow anyway, religion or not.

[T-Bird76]

ITS NOT A RELIGIOUS ISSUE!! The FA is merely trying to make it out to be one. She feels because she's some wonderful devout Christine she should be able to show her love for her god on the outside of her uniform. Well if that's the case then other FA's should be allowed to wear w/e they want outside their uniforms. This is an issue about dress code and nothing more. The FA wants to break dress code she was told she can't and now she's pissed. If the article said other FA's were allowed to wear jewelry outside of the uniform and they said she couldn't wear a cross then she's have something to stand on. Companies have dress codes, you either follow it or you get another job. Any judge who entertains this case for more then 5 minutes is wasting the people's time.

[Tom_Turner]

Well, until such time Tommy and I can have a wrestling match to test the validity of our gentle opinions.. . :)

Which is the most likely to run afoul of BA's Dress Code?

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l67/cicadajet/STPrivateWar.jpg

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l67/cicadajet/STLastBattle.jpg

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l67/cicadajet/STFridaysChild.jpg

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l67/cicadajet/st2-khan.gif

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l67/cicadajet/SAltMonster.jpg

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l67/cicadajet/EweidaCO131006_461x700.jpg

[/img]