Christian woman wins landmark religious discrimination case, as ECHR rules British Airways were wrong to force her out of her job for wearing a cross A Christian woman who was forced out of her British Airways job for wearing a cross has won a landmark legal battle at the European Court of Human Rights. Nadia Eweida took the airline to a tribunal claiming she suffered discrimination at work because of her faith. British Airways maintained the cross was a breach of company uniform codes. In Britain the 60-year-old's case was rejected by an employment tribunal, The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court but today European judges found in her favour. They ruled against three more Christians who launched similar action. Miss Eweida, from Twickenham, south-west London, was sent home from work in September 2006 for displaying a small silver cross on a chain around her neck which she wore as a personal expression of her faith. She returned to work in customer services at Heathrow Airport's Terminal 5 in February 2007, after BA changed its uniform policy on visible items of jewellery. At the ECHR, Miss Eweida argued BA's action contravened articles nine and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights which prohibit religious discrimination and allow "freedom of thought, conscience and religion." Lawyers for the Government, which contested the claim, argued her rights were only protected in private. But judges today ruled there had been a violation of article nine (freedom of religion), by five votes to two. They rejected the cases of nurse Shirley Chaplin, 57, who was switched to a desk job after she also refused to remove a crucifix which she wore with her uniform. Marriage counsellor Gary McFarlane, 51, who was sacked for saying he might object to offering sex therapy to homosexuals, and registrar Lillian Ladele, who was disciplined when she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies, also lost their legal action. The judgment, published in Strasbourg, found a fair balance was not struck between Miss Eweida's desire to demonstrate her religious belief and BA's wish to "project a certain corporate image." It found the airline's aim was "undoubtedly legitimate" but said domestic courts accorded it "too much weight." It concluded: "Ms Eweida's cross was discreet and cannot have detracted from her professional appearance. There was no evidence that the wearing of other, previously authorised, items of religious clothing, such as turbans and hijabs, by other employees had any negative impact on British Airways' brand or image. Moreover, the fact that the company was able to amend the uniform code to allow for the visible wearing of religious symbolic jewellery demonstrates that the earlier prohibition was not of crucial importance. The court therefore concludes that, in these circumstances where there is no evidence of any real encroachment on the interests of others, the domestic authorities failed sufficiently to protect the first applicant's right to manifest her religion. In view of this conclusion, it decided not to examine Ms Eweida's complaint under article 14. Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, said: "Today's judgment is an excellent result for equal treatment, religious freedom and common sense. Nadia Eweida wasn't hurting anyone and was perfectly capable of doing her job whilst wearing a small cross. She had just as much a right to express her faith as a Sikh man in a turban or a Muslim woman with a headscarf. British courts lost their way in her case and Strasbourg has actually acted more in keeping with our traditions of tolerance. However the Court was also right to uphold judgments in other cases that employers can expect staff not to discriminate in the discharge of duties at work.