Nadia Eweida: BA said she had failed to comply with their 'uniform regulations'
Posted on 10/13/2006 4:57:44 PM PDT by fanfan
Nadia Eweida: BA said she had failed to comply with their 'uniform regulations'
A Christian woman has been banned by British Airways for wearing a small cross necklace to work - while muslims and sikhs are allowed to wear headscarves and turbans.
Heathrow check-in worker Nadia Eweida was sent home after refusing to remove the crucifix which breached BA's dress code.
Her treatment by BA - which styles itself as the "world's favourite airline" - brought condemnation both from Christian groups and members of other faiths last night.
BA's chief executive Willie Walsh has upheld the action against Miss Eweida for failing to comply with "uniform regulations" despite himself coming under fire recently for failing to wear a tie.
Miss Eweida, who has an unblemished record during seven years at BA, is suing her employer for religious discrimination after being suspended from work without pay for two weeks.
She said her treatment was all the more extraordinary as she and fellow employees had just undergone "diversity training" - including receiving advice from pressure group Stonewall on how to treat gays and lesbians in the workplace.
The airline's uniform code states that staff must not wear visible jewellery or other 'adornments' while on duty without permission from management.
It makes exceptions for Muslim and Sikh minorities by allowing them to wear hijabs and turbans.
Under rules drawn up by BA's 'diversity team' and 'uniform committee', Sikh employees can even wear the traditional iron bangle - even though this would usually be classed as jewellery - while Muslim workers are also allowed prayer breaks during work time.
But Miss Eweida, 55, from Twickenham, insisted her cross, which is smaller than a ten pence piece, was not jewellery but an expression of her deep Christian faith.
She questioned why she was being forced to hide her religion when BA's Muslim and Sikh workers could express theirs.
Miss Eweida said last night: "I will not hide my belief in the Lord Jesus. British Airways permits Muslims to wear a headscarf, Sikhs to wear a turban and other faiths religious apparel.
"Only Christians are forbidden to express their faith. I am a loyal and conscientious employee of British Airways, but I stand up for the rights of all citizens."
Her case comes at a time of intense debate over the rights of individuals to express their belief - following Jack Straw's call for Muslim women to remove their veils.
Earlier this month it emerged BBC governors had agonised over whether newsreader Fiona Bruce should wear a small cross on a chain around her neck while on air in case it might cause offence by suggesting a religious affiliation.
Miss Eweida, a Coptic Christian whose father is Egyptian and mother English, was ordered to remove her cross or hide it beneath a company cravat by a duty manager at Heathrow's Terminal 4 last month.
She then sought permission from management to wear the chain - but was turned down.
When Miss Eweida, who is unmarried, refused to remove the necklace she was offered the choice of suspension with pay or unpaid leave, pending a disciplinary hearing.
Following a meeting with her managers on 22 September 2006, Customer Service Manager Caroline Girling told Miss Eweida in a letter: "You have been sent home because you have failed to comply with a reasonable request.
"You were asked to cover up or remove your cross and chain which you refused to do.
"British Airways uniform standards stipulate that adornments of any kind are not to be worn with the uniform."
In a letter to Miss Eweida's MP, Vince Cable, last week, BA chief executive Willie Walsh insisted his employee had not yet been disciplined but said she was off work for failing to comply with "uniform regulations".
He added: "We have previously made changes to our uniform policy to accommodate requests, after a detailed evaluation process including Health and Safety assessment to incorporate the wearing of Sikh bangles."
But Miss Eweida said: "BA refuses to recognise the wearing of a cross as a manifestation of the Christian faith, but rather defines it as a piece of decorative jewellery.
"I would like to say how disappointed I am in this decision and the lack of respect shown by BA towards the Christian faith.
"I have been badly treated. I am a loyal and hardworking employee and for seeking similar rights to other employees, I have been treated harshly by British Airways management.
"British Airway can be great again, but it needs to treat Chrstians fairly. I am not ashamed of my faith."
Miss Eweida is suing BA under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.
Her case is being supported by her union, the TGWU, and she has hired Paul Diamond, a barrister specialising in religious affairs and an adviser for the Keep Sunday Special campaign, to represent her at her employment tribunal.
And a petition of support has been signed by more than 200 fellow workers.
BA is already at the centre of a criminal investigation into alleged price-fixing - which has led to the resignations of two executives.
The airline has come under fire in the past for its adherence to political correctness.
A decade ago it attempted to ditch its traditional Union Flag tailfin in favour of an ethnic design - which provoked the anger of Baroness Thatcher.
Mr Cable, MP for Twickenham and Liberal Democrat deputy leader said: "It is absolutely mind boggling that Britain's flag-carrying airline could treat its employees in such a disgraceful and petty manner.
"Nadia is a devout Christian who was displaying her faith, but in a modest and totally unprovocative manner.
"It is absolutely right that other religious minorities be allowed exemption from the dress code, but why can't a Christian be treated in the same way?"
Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, international director of the Christian charity the Barnabas Fund, said: "Discrimination against Christians is commonplace in Muslim-majority contexts, such as Egypt where Nadia's family roots are. "Now we see the same thing increasingly happening within the UK.
"Her Sikh and Muslim colleagues at BA can show their faith publicly in what they wear, but Nadia and other Christians cannot. All we are asking for is a level playing field for all faiths."
Andrea Williams of the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship said: "The forces of political correctness are such that an individual needs to be very determined to protect their rights."
Good post, Thanks.
Yep, it's called the great revolt, and it's only going to get worse until you have to hide in the hills. But the Church is in your heart and cannot be destroyed. So wait until the wrath is passed, those days will be shortened by Christs grace.
Then the judgement will begin, and the true believers will be given a new body like Christs, and taken to the new world in the new heaven.
It's for sure that they don't want to offend the sand fleas.
I already live in the hills.
But I'll never deny that Jesus is my personal Savior. Can't hide that!
Me too, so I don't have to hide, just defend my position, LoL!
Damn good question!
Seems to already be here in many ways. Heck, if the ACLU isn't about a double-standard for practicing Christians, what is?
That's ridiculous...
Is Prince Charles a Convert to Islam?
Mar. 21, 2006 update: Charles weighed in on the Muhammad cartoon controversy, telling an audience of more than 800 Islamic scholars at Cairo's Al-Azhar University in what the Times (London) called a "serious, impassioned 30-minute speech that "The recent ghastly strife and anger over the Danish cartoons shows the danger that comes of our failure [as muslims?] to listen and to respect what is precious and sacred to others. In my view, the true mark of a civilised society is the respect it pays to minorities and to strangers [below islam?]." Mar. 25, 2006 update: As the first Westerner ever to address the Al Imam Mohammad Bin Saud Islamic University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Charles (as was the case in December 2004 – see the update above) chose to give Muslims some advice about modernizing their religion. Note the "we" in the following quote:
"I think we need to recover the depth, the subtlety, the generosity of imagination, the respect for wisdom that so marked Islam in its great ages." He also said Jews and Christians should learn from Islamic teachings:
I agree. There is a double standard at play. it seems muzzie religion can be taught and their religious practices tollerated in schools and public, but christians? no way!
If you only knew.
She deserved to get fired.
If you want to argue that they should change their dress code, I agree 100%, but until that time, I would fire any employee who refused to comply.
Then I'd sue you for discrimination. :o)
If they let one group wear a cresent moon and not a cross, that would be discriminatory. Clothes are not the same thing as jewlery and symbol. Allowing a headscarf is very different.
Bottom line is the dress code is stupid, but that doesn't give her the right to disobey it.
If I were the manager, I'd change the dress code, but I'd still fire anybody who flatly refused to follow it.
I fly to and within Europe quite frequently. In the past, I've sometimes used British Airways. No more. We should get this story out to the American traveling public.
Of course she and her cross offend people. Someone else in history was also entitled an offender. Good for you Nadia - you're in Good Company.
"The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone - a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense." 1Peter2:7,8
Though millenarianism had found numerous adherents among the Christians and had been upheld by several ecclesiastical theologians, neither in the post-Apostolic period nor in the course of the second century, does it appear as a universal doctrine of the Church or as a part of the Apostolic tradition.
I've read numerous articles where even the majority of your church fathers believed in the literal millenial reign of Christ up until after 300 AD...But it makes no difference, neither side can prove it to everyone's satisfaction...
So what we have here that you pointed me to is your church doesn't believe the bible is literal...So??? Do they involve any evidence to back up their belief??? Any scripture to base their belief on???Nope...They just chose to believe it...
The most powerful adversary of millenarianism was Origen of Alexandria. In view of the Neo-Platonism on which his doctrines were founded and of his spiritual-allegorical method of explaining the Holy Scriptures, he could not side with the millenarians.
And along comes Origen from Africa...And Neo-Platonism...And what is neo-Platonism???
A philosophy which was developed during the Renaissance which married Platonic philosophy with Christian thinking.
So Origen combined the philosophy of Plato with the bible of God and set the framework for your church...How many Catholics know that I wonder...
Got news for ya...Bible ain't philosophy...Neither is Christianity...
But all thru this article which doesn't really say much of anything except that the bible has very little to do with your religion, it doesn't mention where you came up with the absurd notion that Christ already reigned on earth for a thousand years...You have any evidence of that, historical, physical???
Your Magisterium in the article did say that the book of Revelation is spiritual...Whatever they mean by that, I don't know...Something that takes place in a different dimension??? Something that happens that doesn't concern us???
Or could it be that because chapter 17 and 18 in the book of Revelation point a finger at your religion as being the origin of the False Prophet and Anti-Christ, if it were to be taken literally???
How can you guys claim to be the church of the bible when you're religion is based on philosophy??? I don't buy it...I don't understand how you can...
Behead Me I'm British BUMP!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.