Mr M O’Neill v Guildowns Group Practice (a firm) — 2023

Mr O’Neill was Deputy Practice Manager at Guildowns Group Practice and took part in drafting the practice’s Covid-19 policies. The tribunal accepted that he had a specific phobia of face masks and face coverings which amounted to a mental impairment with a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities and was likely to recur, so he was disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010. It found, however, that the respondent did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the disability at the earlier stages when he had removed references to a medical exemption and had not explained the basis of his exemption.

The reasonable-adjustments claim failed in both of its pleaded parts. The tribunal held that the failure to send a further staff message after the 15 January 2021 meeting was a one-off administrative error, not a PCP, and that it did not place the claimant at a substantial disadvantage in any event. The separate complaint about the 10 February 2021 letter also failed because the tribunal found the respondent had not in fact required him to wear a mask; it required a visor unless he gave further information about his exemption, and he had previously agreed to wear a visor. The tribunal also found that exempting him from the remaining precautions, or allowing him to work from home, was not a reasonable adjustment on the facts of this role and this workplace.

On the section 15 claims, the tribunal accepted that the 10 February 2021 request for a reasonable justification for the exemption was unfavourable treatment, but held it was proportionate to the legitimate aim of complying with Covid guidance and protecting staff and patients. It also held that the investigation, suspension, disciplinary hearing, dismissal and appeal rejection were unfavourable treatment, but that they were taken because of the claimant’s claimed exemption, his conduct around distancing and mask use, and the respondent’s view that trust and confidence had broken down. The tribunal accepted the respondent’s evidence that the claimant had not reliably maintained the two-metre rule, had given inconsistent accounts, and had led colleagues to doubt his position.

For direct religion or belief discrimination, the tribunal accepted that the pleaded anti-mask Christian/ethical belief was capable of protection under section 10 Equality Act 2010, but found that the respondent did not know of that belief during the material disciplinary stages and only learned of it at appeal stage. It concluded that the dismissal process was not because of that belief, but because of the conduct allegations and the evidence relied on by the respondent. The wrongful dismissal claim also failed because the tribunal found that the claimant had committed gross misconduct by breaching the distancing rules and acting dishonestly about mask and visor use, which amounted to a fundamental breach of the employment relationship. No monetary award was made.