Case 4110496/2021 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4110496/20215 Held on January and February 2022 (Members Meeting) Employment Judge J M Hendry Members Mr F Parr Mr P Kennedy Mr Zygimantas Naglius
The claimant was an agency worker at the respondent’s manufacturing facility and the respondent accepted that he was disabled by reason of anxiety and panic attacks. The dispute concerned the respondent’s policy requiring masks in communal areas during the Covid-19 pandemic. The tribunal found that there was no actual knowledge of the disability at the time the claimant first challenged the mask requirement, but that by 26 April 2021 the claimant’s email, together with the agency contact’s note of his anxiety and difficulties wearing a mask, made the condition and possible disability clear enough to require further enquiries.
On the section 20 reasonable adjustment claim, the tribunal found that the mask requirement in communal areas was a provision, criterion or practice that placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because it heightened his anxiety and caused light-headedness, feelings of suffocation and chest pain. It held that the respondent should have made further enquiries and that, allowing for the time needed to do so, there was a period of about two months from 26 May 2021 until the GP letter dated 27 July 2021 during which the claimant was still required to wear a mask in communal areas. That failure to make a reasonable adjustment was upheld, and the tribunal awarded £2,000 for injury to feelings, assessed on the lower Vento scale.
The section 15 discrimination arising from disability claim was dismissed. Applying the Pnaiser approach to causation, the tribunal held that the claimant was not required to wear the mask because of something arising in consequence of his disability. The mask rule was a general pandemic measure and the tribunal did not accept that the necessary causal link between the disability and the treatment was established on the facts found.
This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make a reasonable adjustment under section 20 Equality Act 2010; the tribunal treated it as a single act of discrimination lasting for the period before the respondent accepted the exemption. | Upheld | Disability | £2,000 |
| Disability discrimination | The section 15 discrimination arising from disability claim failed because the tribunal held the mask requirement was not imposed because of something arising in consequence of the claimant’s disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
The 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.
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.