The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed an appeal against a preliminary hearing determination that the employee’s refusal to wear face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic did not constitute a disability or belief discrimination. The Tribunal correctly applied legal tests to establish impairment and rejected claims that lacked medical evidence and a coherent philosophical foundation.

Background

The appellant claimed disability discrimination under two alleged impairments: a propensity to suffer panic attacks and a profound psychological aversion to wearing face masks. He also asserted discrimination based on philosophical beliefs in “bodily autonomy and integrity”. During the pandemic, the respondent insurance company implemented a face mask policy for office attendance. The claimant refused to comply and continued working from home until restrictions were lifted in February 2022.

The Employment Tribunal conducted a preliminary hearing to determine disability status and belief protection. Despite multiple case management orders directing medical evidence production, the claimant provided only GP records showing historical panic attacks (ceased medication in 2013) and personal statements. The Tribunal found no medical evidence supporting the claimed psychological impairment and determined the philosophical belief lacked necessary cogency under Grainger PLC v Nicholson [2010] ICR 360.

Judgment

The Employment Appeal Tribunal systematically rejected all eleven grounds of appeal. Applying section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, Choudhury J confirmed that the two-stage disability test requires both impairment existence and substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities.

First impairment: The Tribunal properly found insufficient evidence linking historical panic attacks to mask-wearing triggers. The claimant’s coping mechanism involved breathing into paper bags, contradicting his claimed aversion to face coverings.

Second impairment: No medical evidence supported the alleged “profound psychological aversion”. The EAT endorsed requiring expert psychological evidence to distinguish genuine impairments from normal strong reactions, citing J v DLA Piper UK LLP [2010] ICR 1052.

Philosophical belief: The claimed belief failed Grainger criteria, particularly cogency and cohesion requirements. The claimant’s inconsistent articulation included spurious associations between masks and slavery, undermining belief coherence.

Discrimination claims: Direct discrimination failed due to identical treatment of all employees. Indirect discrimination failed because the claimant’s “neutral” belief regarding mask-wearing created no identifiable group disadvantage under Gray v Mulberry Co (Design) Ltd [2020] ICR 715.

Endnote

This decision reinforces stringent evidential requirements for establishing disability, particularly psychological impairments requiring expert medical validation. The judgment clarifies that pandemic workplace policies applied universally cannot constitute direct discrimination absent disparate treatment. The rigorous application of Grainger criteria demonstrates courts’ reluctance to extend belief protection to inconsistently articulated convictions lacking philosophical coherence.

Read the full judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal: AB v CD Ltd [2025] EAT 73