Case 1400983/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400983/2021
- Decision date
- 11 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote preliminary hearing on 11 March 2022, Employment Judge N J Roper determined only whether Mrs Mandy Aire was a disabled person at the material times. The underlying dispute concerned the respondent's criticism of her refusal to wear the face masks or coverings it required during the Covid-19 pandemic, and the claimant's case was that she was exempt because of claustrophobia. The respondent disputed that she had a disability.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had a mental impairment, described as claustrophobia or anxiety arising from claustrophobia, which had lasted throughout her life and had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. It relied on the claimant's evidence, her impact statement, the limited GP notes, and Dr Carty's letter dated 3 November 2021, notwithstanding some inconsistencies and the evidence that she could wear some kinds of masks in some settings. The tribunal therefore found that she was a disabled person within section 6 and Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010 during the material times. This judgment did not decide the substantive Equality Act complaints or any remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only. The tribunal found the claimant was a disabled person at the material times by reason of claustrophobia/related anxiety; this judgment did not determine the substantive Equality Act complaints. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Equality Act 2010 section 6
- Equality Act 2010 Schedule 1
- more than minor or trivial
- paragraph D3 of the 2011 Statutory Guidance
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.