Fear of COVID-19 is Not a Philosophical Belief – Employment Ruling

A fear of contracting COVID-19 or infecting others with the virus is both worthy of respect and readily understandable. However, an Employment Tribunal (ET) has ruled in a novel case that it does not amount to a philosophical belief.

The case concerned a woman who said that her wages had…

Jan 20, 2022

Portrait of a woman wearing disposable face mask 1024x683

A fear of contracting COVID-19 or infecting others with the virus is both worthy of respect and readily understandable. However, an Employment Tribunal (ET) has ruled in a novel case that it does not amount to a philosophical belief.

The case concerned a woman who said that her wages had been withheld after she declined to return to work in July 2020. She believed that the pandemic at that time continued to pose a serious and imminent health and safety risk. She was worried about contracting the disease in her workplace and, in particular, feared passing on the virus to her partner, who was at high risk of becoming gravely ill.

She lodged an ET complaint on the basis that the failure to pay her wages amounted to discrimination on grounds of her philosophical belief, contrary to Section 10 of the Equality Act 2010. She defined that belief as ‘a fear of catching COVID-19 and a need to protect myself and others’. The question of whether that amounted to a philosophical belief was considered by the ET as a preliminary issue.

There was no dispute that her concerns were genuine and worthy of respect in a democratic society. The ET accepted that they were intelligible, serious, cogent and cohesive. Fears about harm caused by COVID-19 were weighty and substantial and certainly not minor or trivial. They concerned aspects of human life and behaviour.

Ruling against her, however, the ET found that a fear of physical harm, and views about how best to reduce or avoid a risk of such harm, is not a belief for the purposes of Section 10. Her claimed belief was a time-specific reaction to her own desire to protect herself and others, principally her partner. Her concerns extended beyond the workplace and would only last for as long as the dangers arising from the pandemic persisted.

Rather than being a belief, her fear was an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available. The ET noted that most, if not all, people instinctively react to perceived or real threats of physical harm in one way or another. Fear of COVID-19 could be described as a widely held opinion, based on the present state of information available, that taking certain steps, for example attending a crowded place during the height of the pandemic, may be dangerous.

Lay Member of EAT Recused from Hearing Matter of Heated Public Debate

Judicial officeholders are commonly high-achieving individuals with wide experience outside the confines of the law. However, as an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling made plain, they must always be alive to the risk that their extra-judicial activities may give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The case concerned a school pastoral administrator who was sacked after expressing on social media certain views relating to the hotly debated issue of mandatory relationship education in…

Foster Panel Chair an Independent Officeholder, Not an Employee

The distinction between an independent officeholder and an employee could hardly be more important but is sometimes difficult to discern. That was certainly so in the case of a woman who served for many years as an independent chair of a local authority’s fostering panel. After her appointment was terminated, the woman lodged an Employment Tribunal (ET) complaint against the council, alleging unfair dismissal and breach of contract. The council denied her claims and, at a preliminary hearing,…

Asbestos Case Focuses on Chemistry Lab Heat Mats Phased Out 50 Years Ago

Anyone who worked in a chemistry lab or who was at school more than 50 years ago is likely to remember the ubiquitous asbestos mats on which Bunsen burners rested. In a sad case that vividly evoked the past, the High Court considered whether their presence can give rise to employer liability in the 21st century. The case concerned a man who worked as an NHS hospital lab technician between 1949 and 1960. He was 86 in 2019 when he was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a form of lung cancer almost…