NHS trust unfairly dismissed theatre practitioner over cross necklace
A theatre practitioner with 19 years' service was constructively dismissed after her employer repeatedly demanded she remove a cross necklace, despite allowing other religious symbols. The tribunal found the trust's policy was inconsistently enforced and unjustified.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #religion-or-belief-discrimination
- #unfair-dismissal
- #constructive-dismissal
- #dress-code-policy
- #health-and-safety
- #cross-necklace
- #inconsistent-enforcement
Key facts
- The claimant, a devout Catholic, wore a cross necklace to work daily from 2001 as a manifestation of her faith.
- The respondent's dress code prohibited necklaces in clinical areas for health and safety reasons.
- From 2016, the claimant was repeatedly asked to remove or conceal the cross, and faced disciplinary action for refusing.
- The tribunal found that other staff wore jewellery and religious items (e.g., hijabs, turbans) with comparable risks without being disciplined.
- The claimant was redeployed to non-clinical roles and given a final written warning, then faced a second investigation, leading her to resign.
- The tribunal held that the interference with the claimant's Article 9 rights was not justified and that she was constructively and unfairly dismissed.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for the respondent as a Theatre Practitioner.
-
First challenge to cross necklace
Manager Ms Walker challenged the claimant about her cross necklace; claimant refused to remove it and no further action was taken.
-
Ms Wright demanded removal of cross
In late 2016, Ms Wright demanded the claimant remove her cross and threatened to escalate; claimant refused.
-
Ms Wright again demanded removal
Ms Wright demanded the claimant remove or conceal her cross, threatening disciplinary action.
-
Email from Ms Wright
Ms Wright emailed the claimant, reiterating the demand and threatening discipline if not complied with.
-
Ms Edmondson confronted claimant in theatre
Ms Edmondson entered the operating theatre while a patient was present to demand the claimant remove her cross.
-
Claimant raised grievance
Claimant raised a formal grievance alleging discrimination because of religion and race.
-
Redeployment to non-clinical duties
Claimant was redeployed to non-clinical roles due to her refusal to remove the cross.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Disciplinary hearing resulted in a final written warning for failure to comply with dress code and management instructions.
-
Second investigation commenced
Respondent commenced a second investigation into the claimant's continued refusal to comply with the dress code.
-
Claimant resigned
Claimant resigned, citing constructive dismissal, effective 22 September 2020.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the NHS trust's dress code policy, which prohibited necklaces in clinical areas but was enforced inconsistently, unlawfully discriminated against the claimant on grounds of religion or belief and amounted to constructive unfair dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal found in favour of the claimant, ruling that Croydon Health Services NHS Trust had unlawfully discriminated against her on grounds of religion or belief and constructively dismissed her.
Key reasons:
- The trust's dress code policy was applied inconsistently: other staff wore jewellery and religious items (e.g., hijabs, turbans) without facing disciplinary action.
- The interference with the claimant's Article 9 rights was not justified, as the trust failed to show that the cross necklace posed a genuine health and safety risk that could not be managed by less restrictive means.
- The trust's conduct, including a final written warning and a second investigation, breached the implied term of trust and confidence, leading to constructive dismissal.
Compensation: To be determined at a later remedy hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must apply dress code policies consistently across all religious and non-religious items to avoid discrimination claims.
- A health and safety justification for banning religious symbols must be based on specific evidence, not general assumptions.
- Long-serving employees are entitled to a fair process before disciplinary action; failing to consider alternative accommodations can lead to constructive dismissal claims.
- If an employer allows some religious symbols (e.g., hijabs, turbans), it must have a clear rationale for banning others, or risk being found discriminatory.
When a dress code becomes discrimination
For nearly two decades, a theatre practitioner at Croydon Health Services NHS Trust wore a small cross necklace as a manifestation of her Catholic faith. The trust's dress code prohibited necklaces in clinical areas for health and safety reasons, but the policy was not consistently enforced. Other staff wore jewellery and religious items such as hijabs and turbans without being disciplined.
From 2016, the trust repeatedly demanded the claimant remove or conceal her cross, escalating to disciplinary action and a final written warning. The tribunal found that the trust's approach was disproportionate and unjustified. The interference with the claimant's Article 9 right to manifest her religion was not necessary for health and safety, especially given the inconsistent enforcement.
What the trust could have done differently
The trust could have conducted a proper risk assessment of the cross necklace, considering its size and material, and explored less restrictive alternatives such as a magnetic breakaway clasp. Instead, it applied a blanket ban that singled out the claimant. The tribunal noted that the trust's own policy allowed for exceptions, but these were not considered.
Why this case matters
This case highlights the importance of consistent and proportionate application of dress code policies in the workplace, particularly in healthcare settings where health and safety concerns must be balanced against religious rights. Employers should ensure that any restriction on religious symbols is based on specific evidence and applied uniformly. For employees, the case demonstrates that long service and a previously tolerated practice can strengthen a claim of discrimination or constructive dismissal.
Similar cases
Personal assistant who refused to attend work during lockdown wins constructive dismissal claim
A personal assistant with 11 years' service was constructively dismissed after raising health and safety concerns about attending work during the November 2020 lockdown. The tribunal awarded her over £115,000 in total.
Before and after school club leader loses Covid-19 safety dismissal claim
A before and after school club leader who refused to attend work during the pandemic claiming serious and imminent danger has lost her unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found her belief was not reasonable given the school's risk assessments.
Former employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of two years' service
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Kings College London was struck out because they did not have the required two years' service. Their discrimination claims were dismissed after a hearing.
Pregnant employee dismissed after raising health and safety concerns: tribunal awards £43,000
A former employee who was dismissed while pregnant after raising health and safety concerns has won her claims for pregnancy discrimination and unfair dismissal. The East London Employment Tribunal awarded her £43,153.60 in compensation.