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
Speechlive LogoClick to know more
Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson appoints Vicky Tomlinson as Head of Independent Health and Care

DWF—five appointments

DWF—five appointments

DWF further strengthens major injury and casualty offering with new partner and four directors from DAC Beachcroft

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis strengthens Grimsby child care team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Employment law’s four-point check
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
NLJ this week: Privacy meets the courtroom
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
NLJ this week: Auditors tighten the disclosure screws
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
NLJ this week: Telecoms tenants caught in a legal gap
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’
NLJ this week: Due process holds the line

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll