British Airways operated a uniform policy that banned employees from visibly wearing items (including religious items) outside their uniform unless wearing the item was a “mandatory” scriptural requirement

Ms Eweida accepted that it was not a mandatory scriptural requirement of her faith to wear her cross outside of her clothing but nevertheless considered it as a personal expression of her faith. The original tribunal had held that there was no direct discrimination and Ms Eweida appealed on the basis that BA’s policy had an indirectly discriminatory effect on her.  

The EAT held that there was no evidence of group disadvantage and Ms Eweida did not present any evidence that people complying with the uniform policy did so despite disagreeing on religious grounds. The EAT also held that the fact that someone conceivably did exist with the same belief as Ms Eweida was not in itself sufficient to prove group disadvantage.  

Eweida v British Airways Plc, EAT