Please sign in with your existing account details.
Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.
Privacy statement - Terms and conditions
Forgotten your password?
You have exceeded the maximum number of login attempts for this email address and your account has been locked. An email has been sent to member of Browne Jacobson's web team and some one will be contacting you over the next two working days with details of how to change your password.
Are you sure you want to remove this item from you pinned content?
On 15th January 2013 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) will deliver its judgement on four cases where it is claimed UK law does not sufficiently protect an employees’ rights to freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination at work. The cases can be categorised as uniform cases and refusal cases.
Two of the cases demonstrate the balance to be struck between allowing an employer to set a uniform policy and the ability of an employee to manifest their religious or philosophical beliefs. The court could conclude that every uniform policy includes a reasonable adjustment type term to encourage employers to accommodate the wearing of a religious symbol unless there are fair grounds to refuse. Imposing absolute rules is unlikely to be attractive to the ECHR.
The court should have less difficulty with the two refusal cases. Both employees accepted jobs with duties that required them to serve the public without discrimination. As the employee’s beliefs inhibited them from doing so for the very reason made illegal by discrimination law, it seems likely that the court will uphold their dismissals.
However, if any of claims are upheld UK law might have to be changed.
Some schools have hit the headlines this week for their decisions to offer only vegetarian meals. But would a similar approach extend to the workplace?
View blog
Developers received welcome confirmation from the Court of Appeal this month that ‘overlooking’ (providing a view into another’s property) does not constitute a nuisance or invasion of privacy.
Can an employee, who has been in breach of their contract in the past, successfully bring a claim for breach of contract by their employer following their dismissal?
The government has confirmed that it will be reintroducing its policy of “Naming and Shaming” those employers who fail to pay their workers the National Minimum Wage or National Living Wage.
Partner
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Sign up