The case of Eweida v British Airways concerns a Christian woman who was disciplined by her employer for wearing a cross, contrary to its dress code. Her claim has been rejected for the third time, this time by the Court of Appeal. The main point in the appeal is the suggestion by Karon Monaghan QC that a policy can give rise to indirect discrimination even if there is only one person put at a disadvantage as a result. Given the clear wording of the statute, the doubt expressed about this submission is no great surprise, despite an ingenious argument that the words ‘would put…at a disadvantage” means that a hypothetical group should be considered even where no such group exists. In any event, the majority goes on to hold that, if the case is put in this new way, any disadvantage would inevitably be justified.