In person For the v Respondent — 2023

At a private preliminary hearing on 14 and 15 August 2023, Employment Judge M Ord considered whether the claimant was disabled within s.6 of the Equality Act 2010, whether his stated belief in freedom, dignity, bodily autonomy and integrity was protected under s.10, and whether the pleaded complaints should be struck out. The respondent's Ipswich office had been closed until 10 May 2021 and then reopened subject to a policy requiring face coverings while moving around the office unless an employee was medically exempt, with a doctor's note required from August 2021.

On disability, the tribunal found that the claimant had suffered panic attacks earlier in life but had not had such attacks since at least 1995, had not needed medication after 2013, and produced no medical or expert evidence that wearing a face covering would trigger panic attacks. It rejected his second asserted impairment as an attempt to recast a philosophical objection to masks as a medical condition, and held that he had not shown a physical or mental impairment with a substantial, long-term adverse effect.

On the belief claim, the tribunal held that the stated belief was too wide-ranging and did not satisfy the Grainger criteria because it lacked the required cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance. It found that the claimant's real objection was that he considered masks ineffective against Covid-19, and that his references to slavery, imprisonment and similar examples did not make the belief protectable in this dispute.

The tribunal added that, even if disability had been established, the pleaded disability complaints would have failed because there was no disparity of treatment, the relevant decision-maker lacked knowledge of any disability, and the policy was proportionate in light of the pandemic and the route for medical exemption. It therefore held that each complaint had no reasonable prospect of success and struck them out.