The Freedom of Religion and Compelled Accommodations in the UK Law

Authored By: Khadija Munir

De Montfort University

The freedom of religion is a fundamental constitutional importance of the United Kingdom, which are protected under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and domestic equality legislation, for example, the Equality Act 2010. However, this freedom means that individuals that hold their own ideas and beliefs must be able face challenges without interference from the state, or from employers service providers and other people.

But the question of what happens when a persons’ religious conviction clashes with another persons’ rights or rules of a workplace? Who should the law be accommodating to, religious practises or rules of the workplace?

This article analyses the legal framework, key case law, legislation and practical challenges that occur when managing to balance religious freedom in the UK and balancing rights under Article 9 and 14 ECHR.

The Legal Framework: Article 9 ECHR and Domestic Law

Article 9(1) European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) protects the freedom of thought, conscience and religion, in the UK. It is incorporated into the domestic law through s6 and s7 HRA 1998. Article 9 includes the Forum Internum, which is the absolute right to hold religious belief and the Forum Externum, which is the qualified right to manifest religious belief. This is important as the state cannot come between with what an individual believes, however, it can restrict how the beliefs are portrayed if the interference is lawful and necessary.

1.1 The Equality Act 2010

The Equality Act 2010 had been set to prevent discrimination based on religion or belief in employment, education, services and public functions. There are two provisions that relate to this, these are, s19: Indirect discrimination (where the neutral rule disproportionately impacts groups of a particular religion or belief) and s10, which states the definition of “religion or belief”. Indirect discrimination can be explained if an employer can show a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.

Operational vs Ideological Conflicts:

2.1 Operational Accommodations

This may involve practical adjustments, like flexible schedules for religious festivals, which allows religious dress or symbols or adapting uniform requirements. The UK Courts are able to support these accommodations when they don’t inflict unreasonable burdens.

2.2 Ideological Accommodations

These accommodations can be more difficult. They occur when an individuals’ religious beliefs oppose with larger institutional aims or with other rights. UK Courts have continuously emphasised that although belief itself is protected, actions that violate on others’ rights can rarely justify accommodation.

Key Case Law

3.3 Eweida and Others v United Kingdom [2013] 57 EHHR 8

Ms Eweida, an employee of British Airways, pursued to wear a visible cross. The ECHR held the UK had failed to protect her rights under Article 9, also emphasising that employers should reach a fair compromise unless there is a strong jurisdiction for restrictions the European Court of Human Rights held that the UK did not protect Ms Eweida’s Article 9 rights, due to wearing a cross does not restrict the BA’s business interests.

Significance: UK employers must try to accommodate religious expressions, especially when it imposes minimal or no impact on the business. It strengthened the protection of an individual’s religious or symbols.

3.4 Ghaidan c Gidlun-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30

Although this case is not strictly religious-accommodated, the House of Lords judgment highlights a key critical principle: The domestic courts must read legislation that is compatible with the Convention “so far as possible,” (s3 HRA 1998).

Significance: Historically, this case increased the courts’ willingness to stabilise the rights in a Convention-compliant fashion.

3.5 R (Begum) v Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15

A Muslim student had the desire to wear a jilbab to school, however, it contradicted with the school’s uniform policy. The House of Lords held that the school acted in a lawful and proportionate manner and the claimants Article 9 rights were not disregarded.

Significance: It emphasised the balance between religious freedom and a school’s rights to enforce a uniform policy and the role of age that determines a person’s capacity to make decisions.

3.6 R v Aberdare Girls’ High School [2008] EWHC 1865

A Sikh student challenged her school’s policy that prohibited the wearing of a Kara (steel bangle), which was a significant part of the students Sikh faith. The High Court focused on whether the ban constituted indirect discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Equality Act 2006.

Significance: This portrays how the UK Courts are able to recognise meaningful religious practises even if they do not seem mandatory under the religious doctrine.

When must employers or institutions accommodate belief?

Accommodating to someone’s needs or beliefs is not automatic, the court must engage in a proportionality analysis that examines the legitimate aim of the restriction: Common justifications include, health and safety, preventing discrimination, operational effectiveness and uniformity and school governance. They also examine proportionality and the balance of competing rights, by weighing: Severity of the impact on the believer, feasibility of accommodation, impact on third parties and the employers business needs.

Religious objections and conflicting rights

A very challenging category is cases where religious objections oppose with equality law. The UK Courts must be consistent in prioritising non-discrimination, relating to, sexual orientation, gender identity and sex equality. The basis is that religion cannot be used to object to equal service or treatment to others.

The Ladele Principle:

This principle comes from the case Ladele v London Borough of Islington; It established that in a conflict between an employee’s religious beliefs and a public employers policy that is aimed at securing the rights of others. It also extends into private employment under the Equality Act 2006.

The duty of reasonable accommodation and emerging issues

The UK does not validate a general duty of religious accommodation, instead it emerges indirectly from Article 9 and indirect discrimination analysis under the Equality Act 2010. Although, post-Eweida, UK employers are required to consider possible accommodations, even if they object to them for legitimate reasons.

Many challenges involve headscarves, crosses, turbans and beards but as workplaces become more diverse, clearer guidance must be made. Issues have been arising in healthcare; religious objections include conflicts between religious beliefs and the LGBTQ+ community and the conscientious objection to participate in abortion.

Conclusion

The UK law actively protects the freedom of religion but recognises that it is not complete. Courts in the UK constantly highlights balancing conflicting rights instead of prioritising one over the other. Religious expression could be limited when it is necessary to protect equality, public safety or the rights of others. Key cases like Eweida, Begum and Ladele displays a mature, proportionate approach: The law recognises genuine religious conscience but does not use it to justify discrimination or undermine fundamental freedoms. Even though there is not a formal duty of religious accommodation, the UK’s human rights structure and equality legislation produce expectations that employers and public authorities consider religious needs seriously. And as society becomes more diverse, pressure between religious freedom become more complicated, but the UK’s dedication to proportionality and fairness remains constant to resolving challenges and issues.

Bibliography

Case Law: