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.

‘Cheeky Monkey’ Comment a Racial Slur in a Workplace Context, ET Rules

Comments like ‘cheeky monkey’ may be viewed as entirely innocent in one context but can have racial undertones in another. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in upholding a racial harassment claim brought by a Somali man who was referred to as such by a co-worker. After the man, who worked for a cleaning contractor, lodged proceedings following his dismissal, the ET found on the balance of probabilities that the co-worker had, on separate occasions, called him a cheeky monkey and told…

Disability Discrimination – Corner Shops Owe the Same Duties as Multinationals

Small businesses not blessed with human resources departments can find it hard to accommodate disabled members of staff who need to take time off work. However, as an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling showed, when it comes to catering for their needs, a corner shop owes the same legal obligations as a multinational. The case concerned a barber who sustained a broken shoulder in an accident. Her constant pain and restricted movement made such tasks as washing and drying her own hair difficult. She…

Workplace Disciplinary Proceedings – Empathy and Understanding Required

The critical issue in many employment cases is whether an employee’s dismissal lies within the range of reasonable responses open to the employer. As an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling showed, the answer to that question often depends on the level of empathy and understanding shown in the disciplinary process. The case concerned a university library employee who was working alone behind the reception desk when, as she was entitled to do, she asked a student to show her photo identity…