Analysis: Human rights ruling that changes very little in how the law will operate

WHAT did the European Court of Human Rights actually decide? Remarkably little, as it happens.

The judges held that a balance has to be struck between an employee’s right to manifest his or her religious beliefs in a sensible manner, and the right of employers to set rules.

For nurse Shirley Chaplin’s employer, that meant it was entitled to prevent her wearing a cross as there was a risk of infection to patients.

For Nadia Eweida’s employer, British Airways, the court held that its corporate image would not have suffered if she had worn a “discreet” cross, and so BA did not establish it was justified in enforcing its dress code.

The court also made it clear that employees cannot rely on equality rights to discriminate against others. In other words, the social worker and registrar who refused to carry out their duties with same-sex couples effectively lost the protection of the religious belief discrimination laws because their views, if allowed to stand, would have meant their employers were potentially discriminating against homosexuals.

What lesson can be learned? Employees have a right to manifest an individual religious belief in the workplace, as long as it does not unreasonably infringe on others. But that’s not new. As long as employers recognise that accommodations sometimes need to be made for religious beliefs, if they have no major impact on the business, they will be safe.

• Daniel Barnett is an employment law barrister at Outer Temple Chambers.