Would you notice if the member of staff checking you in to a flight was wearing a discreet piece of jewellery? And if you did, would it alter your view or opinion of that company? I suspect that for the majority of people the answer would be no.
And that's really at the heart of the "Christian Crosses" cases that were finally decided by the European Court this week. It's worth remembering that - despite the media headlines - only one of the four individuals won their case; the others all had their claims rejected.
The successful claim was that of Ms Eweida, the BA employee who was told to remove her cross in similar circumstances to that above. The court decided that BA's reaction was disproportionate in the circumstances - they had adopted a "rules is rules" attitude and their argument that it affected their "corporate brand image" was not accepted. Ironically this was very similar to the decision that the original Employment Tribunal made, many years ago!
In the other "crosses" case the court decided that preventing Ms Chaplin, a nurse, from wearing a cross round her neck, was a legitimate decision. Her right to be open about her Christianity did not allow her to put patients, colleagues or herself at risk of injury or infection. Her employer behaved in a proportionate manner.
The other two individuals, Ms Ladele and Mr McFarlane, failed with their claims that being dismissed for refusing to work with gay people (in one case to carry out civil partnership ceremonies, in the other to counsel gay couples having relationship problems) infringed their right to express their religious views. Here the European Court essentially upheld the view of the UK courts that the over-riding aim of the law is to protect everyone from discrimination - so having one characteristic (religious belief) does not allow you to infringe the rights of others to equal treatment.
So what are the practical issues for small businesses? Well for me there are three things:
1. Don't get bogged down with irrelevant and unjustifiable "rules". Treat your employees like adults (even if they don't always behave like them). If you have a good reason for having a rule then it's likely- in the light of this- that you will have a defence against a suggestion that you are discriminating.
2 The judgment confirms that individuals are entitled to be open about their personal views (though that doesn't give them carte blanche to ignore company rules and policies). Organisations can't act as thought police.
3. Don't use the argument that "if someone doesn't like it, they can get another job". The Court pointed out that the this wasn't in itself a valid reason for ignoring or trampling over an individual's beliefs. It was about striking a balance in a proportionate way. In Ms Ladele's case in particular they noted that she was already employed when Civil Partnerships were introduced and her employer had a duty to at least consider whether it could accommodate her views.
This is obviously a very quick summary of complex legal arguments. If you want to read more about the legal issues then the excellent blogs by Darren Newman (easily found through google) are a good place to start. Most employers are more likely to want to know "how does this affect me & my business?" and the answer should be "if you're reasonable and sensible, hardly at all".
