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
Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll