During the pandemic, the Respondent imposed a policy requiring employees to wear a face mask whilst attending the office for work. The Claimant was unable to comply allegedly because of disabilities arising from two impairment, the first being a propensity to suffer panic attacks and the second being a profound psychological aversion to wearing face coverings. The Claimant also contended that being compelled to wear a face mask was contrary to his philosophical belief in freedom, dignity, bodily autonomy and integrity. The ET, noting that the Claimant had ceased to take any medication for panic attacks in about 2013, found that a propensity to suffer panic attacks in connection with wearing a face covering had not been established. It also found that in the absence of any medical evidence as to the purported psychological aversion, there was no impairment in that regard either. Accordingly, the claims based on disability were rejected. As to belief discrimination, the ET concluded that the belief as presented to the ET was insufficiently cogent or cohesive to satisfy the Grainger criteria (Grainger PLC v Nicholson [2010] ICR 360). In coming to that conclusion, the ET noted, in particular, that the Claimant’s beliefs were closely associated with spurious notions about mask-wearing being necessarily associated with slavery, subjugation and Munchausen’s Syndrome by proxy. The ET also considered that, in any event, the Claimant’s claims of discrimination were bound to fail due to the absence of any disparate treatment or any group or individual disadvantage. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The ET had not erred in concluding that the Claimant had failed to establish the existence of an impairment and therefore any disability, within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. The ET could not simply assume, in the absence of medical evidence, that the Claimant’s claimed reaction to mask-wearing was such as to amount to an impairment. As to the Claimant’s belief, the ET was entitled to consider the evidence of the belief as it had been presented, even if the Claimant now contends that the matters which the ET found lacked cohesion or cogency did not in fact form part of his belief. There was no error in respect of the ET’s conclusions as to direct and indirect discrimination.