header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
21 January 2021 / John Bowers KC
Issue: 7917 / Categories: Features , Human rights , Discrimination
printer mail-detail

Religious dress: human rights & discrimination (Part 2)

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
36428
John Bowers QC examines some ground-breaking decisions on religious dress & calls for balance between competing perspectives
  • A number of recent cases demonstrate the many different interests involved in responding to the interconnection between workplace dress codes and religious dress.

In Part 1 of this article I considered the general provisions of the human rights and EU provisions caselaw. Here I move on to consider the Eweida cases and the veil cases, before reaching conclusions.

Eweida v United Kingdom

The four conjoined cases known together as Eweida v United Kingdom [2013] IRLR 231, [2013] All ER (D) 69 (Jan) broke new ground in relation to religious manifestation generally and religious dress in particular, and rejected the proposition that there was no breach of Art 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) because the employee might resign the employment or the student might go elsewhere to school. If at all, this was relevant in the overall weighing of proportionality and not as a jurisdictional

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll