The case has prompted what Liberty described as a “political furore”. The human rights group plans to intervene in both this case and another — that of Nadia Eweida, a Christian British Airways worker, who claims that she had to take unpaid leave after refusing to remove a cross. Similarly, Fiona Bruce, the newsreader, was at the centre of controversy over whether she could wear a cross when reading the news. BBC executives have now said she may, as long as it’ s not large or shiny.

The cases are not the first. Eversheds, the City law firm, acted for Virgin Trains in the first religious discrimination claim to reach the Employment Appeal Tribunal since the laws barring unfair treatment of workers on religious grounds took effect in 2003. Mohsin Mohmed, a former customer service assistant at Euston Station, claimed religious discrimination when he was dismissed for refusing to trim his beard to a fist’s length — four inches. The appeal tribunal found that he and Virgin had agreed that he trim his beard to this length and that his treatment was no different from a non-Muslim employee.

Both cases show how courts are increasingly deciding the sensitive issue of whether jewellery or clothing worn for cultural or religious reasons can be banned in the workplace. The cases can have political and social reverberations. But what is their legal impact? The consensus is that the veil case sets no precedent. Owen Warnock, employment law partner at Eversheds, says: “This ruling is not instigating a ban on the wearing of veils in the workplace. The tribunal will have considered the specific circumstances of the job. The argument that an employee should not wear a veil would probably carry less weight if she worked in a call centre or factory (not face-to-face work).”

Matthew Whelan, a solicitor at Speechly Bircham, the City law firm, agreed. It is too easy, he says, in an emotive case to confuse the “often polarised moral arguments” with the legal question of discrimination. “The position in law, in the absence of direct discrimination, is still that a policy requiring staff not to wear a veil at work will constitute discrimination unless it can be justified.” And only in exceptional cases, such as this, involving the effectiveness of a child’s education, might it be argued with success. David Faulkner, an employment specialist with Martineau Johnson, similarly cautioned that if not careful, employers could end on the wrong side of claims and face unlimited damages. The test, he says, is whether a job has special requirements such as face-to-face contact. “Employers must consider positively if they can accommodate religious expression and have clear reasons if they can not. This decision does not give them a green light to insist that expressions of religious belief can be kept away from work.”

What employers must do, according to Gareth Edwards, employment lawyer with Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, is balance any wish to see an employee’s face against her cultural or religious beliefs. “In other scenarios, such as shop and office work, an employer may struggle to justify a dress code demanding the veil be removed.”

Legally, the decision is not binding on other tribunals, Richard Linskell, employment partner at Dawsons, points out — unless upheld on appeal. And other cases could result in different rulings. “Each will be judged on its merits. It is possible that at a future date there could be a ruling that a ban on veil-wearing is direct or indirect discrimination.” But legislation to outlaw the wearing of veils — as in France — is unlikely, he says, because there is not the same Church-State separation.

So far human rights have not had much of a mention. But Suzanne McKie, deputy chairman of the Employment Lawyers’ Association, says Article 9 of the European Convention, on the right to “manifest” one’s religion, could be invoked at any appeal. This, though, is not an absolute right and subject to “proportionate interference”.

The debate will not stop at the veil. But the weight of argument with apparel could be even heavier against employers. McKie says any boss would have to think “long and hard” before being able to justify a request to remove a turban.

Meanwhile, the rumblings from the veil case will go on. But not for its legal significance. On this court case at least, politicians have had more to say than the lawyers.

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• Future Stars of the Bar 2008
• Lawyer of the Week: Julie Morris
• Charging suspects - why it's a job for prosecutors