By Matthew Rowlinson, Employment Rights Lawyer &
Neil Guss Regional Employment Rights Manager
Background
Mr Hindmarch, a non-emergency ambulance driver, was dismissed on ill-health grounds after a long period of absence during the Covid-19 pandemic. Clinically vulnerable and experiencing significant anxiety about exposure to the virus, he had requested an FFP3 mask—offered to emergency crews—as a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act. The Trust declined and later dismissed him, citing his inability to return to work.
Key Issues
Request for FFP3 Mask Rejected
The employer refused the request, pointing to national guidance and raising concerns about its practicality for use whilst driving and for long shifts. The tribunal found that the mask would not have overcome Mr Hindmarch’s anxiety enough to enable a return to work (as it what was not complete protection from the Covid-19 virus).
Lack of Prospect for Return
Occupational Health assessments and Mr Hindmarch’s own statements indicated there was no realistic prospect of him returning, even with the requested mask. The Trust had explored alternative roles and supported phased returns, but Mr Hindmarch later disengaged from the process.
No Breach of Equality Duty
The tribunal concluded that the Trust was not in breach of its duty to make reasonable adjustments. The requested provision of the mask would not have removed the substantial disadvantage he faced (and therefore the request was not reasonable), and the employer had made proportionate efforts to support him.
Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) Decision
The EAT dismissed the appeal. It ruled that:
- The employer’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
- The proposed adjustment was unlikely to be effective.
- The dismissal process was fair and legally sound.
Significance
For union members and reps, this case highlights that reasonable adjustments must be practical and likely to help (or facilitate a return to work). Requests linked to mental health must be supported by clear evidence of how they will make a difference. It also reinforces the need for early engagement with Occupational Health and transparent communication.
Outcome
The EAT upheld the tribunal’s decision. Mr Hindmarch’s claims of discrimination and unfair dismissal were dismissed.
