Case Report
AB v CD Ltd – Disability, Belief and the Right to Refuse Mask-Wearing
By William Webb Employment Rights Lawyer &
James Lenihan Regional Employment Rights Manager
Background
This case concerns Mr AB, a claims adjuster employed by CD Ltd, who refused to attend the office during the COVID-19 pandemic due to a face mask requirement. He claimed this refusal was protected under the Equality Act 2010, alleging both disability and philosophical belief discrimination.
Mr AB argued that he could not wear a mask because of:
- A longstanding propensity to suffer panic attacks, and
- A profound psychological aversion to being compelled to wear face coverings, which he said stemmed from his belief in personal autonomy and dignity.
The Employment Tribunal dismissed his claims following a preliminary hearing, and Mr AB appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
Key Issues
Disability discrimination – medical history and mask aversion
The claimant relied on two impairments: historic panic attacks (for which he had not taken medication since 2013) and a psychological aversion to mask-wearing. The Tribunal found no medical evidence to support either as impairments under section 6 of the Equality Act. It held that a genuine belief that masks might trigger a panic attack was insufficient without objective evidence.
Psychological aversion or belief?
The Tribunal viewed Mr AB’s reaction as rooted in belief, not impairment. His expressed views about mask-wearing being akin to slavery or abuse were considered political or moral beliefs, not symptoms of a mental health condition.
Philosophical belief – Grainger test
Mr AB claimed to hold a belief in bodily autonomy, freedom, and dignity. While the EAT acknowledged that some of these values may in principle be protected, it agreed with the Tribunal that Mr AB’s presentation lacked the cogency and seriousness required under Grainger v Nicholson [2010] IRLR 4. His arguments were found to be too closely tied to personal objections to the effectiveness of pandemic measures rather than a coherent philosophical belief.
Procedural fairness and case presentation
Mr AB criticised the Tribunal process, arguing he was not given fair notice that the preliminary hearing would determine his protected status. The EAT rejected this, noting that the Tribunal had made clear what was at issue and had given him ample opportunity to present evidence.
Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) Decision
The EAT upheld the Tribunal’s decision in full, finding that:
- There was no error of law in concluding Mr AB was not disabled.
- The claimed philosophical belief was not sufficiently coherent or serious to qualify for protection.
- Even if a protected characteristic had been established, there was no evidence of group disadvantage or less favourable treatment required to make out a claim of indirect discrimination.
The appeal was dismissed.
Significance
This decision provides clear guidance for reps and members dealing with COVID-related workplace disputes:
- Medical evidence is essential: Claimants must back up disability claims with robust evidence. Personal conviction and general material relating to medical conditions not linked to the claimant are not enough.
- Belief claims require structure: Philosophical beliefs must meet the legal tests set out in Grainger. Vague or extreme views, especially if tied to conspiracy rhetoric, are unlikely to succeed.
- Uniform policies can be lawful: Where employers apply safety measures evenly and in line with government guidance, discrimination claims will struggle—especially if the employee has not informed them of a relevant disability.
Outcome
Mr AB’s appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal’s ruling stands, confirming that CD Ltd acted lawfully in enforcing its face mask policy, and that no protected characteristic was engaged in this case.
