Mr K Amankwa, lay representative For the v Respondent — 2023

The tribunal found that Mrs M Acheampong had asthma, but not that it amounted to a disability within s.6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant times. It accepted that she had asthma since childhood, but rejected her account of a more than minor effect on day-to-day activities. It found that she had previously worn a fluid-resistant surgical mask while cleaning infected side rooms before the covid pandemic, that her evidence about triggers and medication was unreliable, and that the GP letters and occupational health material were not based on independent assessment.

Her section 15 disability claim failed. The tribunal found that she could and did wear a fluid-resistant surgical mask before 7 April 2020, and that when she went home on 6/7 April 2020 it was because she did not want to work on a ward with possible covid patients, not because asthma prevented her from wearing a mask. It also found that the later January 2022 email about the mask-fit test reflected a view that she was not cooperating with the test, rather than inability caused by asthma. The tribunal therefore rejected the pleaded allegations of unfavourable treatment arising from disability.

Her reasonable adjustments claim also failed. The tribunal held that the pleaded PCP of requiring a face mask at work did not place her at a substantial disadvantage because she did not struggle to breathe while wearing an ordinary fluid-resistant surgical mask and was able to work in one for up to 1.5 hours at a time. It further held that the suggested adjustments, including redeployment to a non-covid area, a mask-exempt lanyard, a different mask, weekly review meetings, visor-only work, twice-weekly lateral flows, and vaccination encouragement, were not reasonable or practicable before 8 April 2022, when advice from a suitably qualified professional supported visor-only work in a low-risk area.

The unlawful deduction claim failed because the tribunal found that the contract required work, proper sickness reporting and certification, and that the claimant did not provide fit notes after 25 May 2020 or remain in contact with the respondent as required. It held that she was paid for the periods covered by the fit notes she did provide, and that the respondent was contractually entitled not to pay her once certification ceased and she did not work. To the extent she argued that she was entitled to statutory sick pay after August 2020, the tribunal said that dispute was outside its jurisdiction under Taylor Gordon & Co Ltd v Timmons. As all claims failed, there was no remedy hearing.