Search

How can we help?

Icon

Employee’s fear of catching Covid-19 was not a philosophical belief

A Tribunal has ruled that a fear of catching COVID-19 is not a protected belief under the Equality Act following a UK worker’s claim that she had been discriminated against by her employer after she refused to attend work on health and safety grounds during the pandemic.

The claimant had alleged that in July 2020 she had refused to return to work on the basis that she had a fear of contracting COVID-19 and a need to protect myself (sic) and other”. Specifically, the Claimant had a ‘genuine fear’ of passing it to her partner who was vulnerable.

The Judge held that the claimant’s fear did not amount to a belief and rather ‘it is a reaction to a threat of physical harm and the need to take steps to avoid or reduce that threat. Most (if not all) people, instinctively react to perceived or real threats of physical harm in one way or another.’ He added that “it can also 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 current pandemic, would increase the risk of contracting COVID-19 and may therefore be dangerous”.

The judgment is not legally binding however it will no doubt provide employers with some confidence when considering whether to deduct pay or dismiss employees who refuse to return to the office due to a fear of catching COVID-19.

However, employers should ensure that they tread carefully to ensure they do not discriminate on the basis of any other protected characteristic or leave themselves vulnerable to potential unfair dismissal claims for any employees who have over two years’ service. In addition, under section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘the ERA’) employees are protected against being subjected to a detriment for refusing to work in circumstances in which they believe there to be a ‘serious and imminent’ danger.

Under section 100 of the ERA employees who are dismissed for taking steps to avoid a ‘serious and imminent’ risk of danger may qualify for a claim of automatic unfair dismissal which does not require the usual two years’ service.

Despite the above comments of the Judge, he did also state that “Fears about the harm being caused by COVID-19 are weighty and substantial. They are certainly not minor or trivial…”.

With this in mind, it is important for employers to understand the health and safety obligations which they have towards their employees.

The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 imposes a general duty on employers to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees.

In order for an employer to discharge such duties they should ensure they are taking steps to consider how they might minimise the risks of COVID-19 which could include but are not limited to the following:

  • Carry out suitable risk assessments to identify risks. Such risk assessments may need to look at different groups of workers (such as pregnant workers or individuals with a disability) who may need reasonable adjustments or additional measures to be implemented;
  • Implement measures and take reasonably practicable steps to minimise such risks;
  • Provide adequate ventilation in the workplace;
  • Provide hand sanitiser and actively encourage employees to use it;
  • Arrange for the workplace to be cleaned more regularly;
  • Ensure they have a system in place for if employees attend the workplace with COVID-19 symptoms.
  • The Health and Safety Executive have provided guidance on what employers should be considering as part of their risk assessment.

We would recommend that if employers have any concerns or doubts on their health and safety obligations and whether they have been discharged in respect of Covid-19 specifically and/or whether they can mandate employees to return to work at any stage, subject to Government guidance, they should seek legal advice.

About this article

Disclaimer
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

art
  • 19 April 2024
  • Employment

Amanda Glover comments on ‘Employment law isn’t working for anyone’ for HR Magazine

In HR magazine, Amanda Glover, Associate at Clarkslegal responds to the recent article titled ‘Employment law isn’t working for anyone’ by Libby Purves in The Times last week.

art
  • 17 April 2024
  • Immigration

Shaping Britain’s Future: updates to Skilled Worker and Family visas

In December 2023, the UK government, under Home Secretary James Cleverly, announced a five-point plan aimed at reducing net migration, with significant revisions to visa regulations.

art
  • 17 April 2024
  • Employment

‘Injured feelings’- Vento Bands price increase 2024

Injuring someone’s feelings through acts of discrimination, harassment or victimisation can be a costly business.

art
  • 17 April 2024
  • Employment

FAQs on the long awaited amendments to Statutory Paternity Leave

This April has seen a wave of new family friendly rights come into force. Amongst these, is the long awaited amendments to Statutory Paternity Leave.

art
  • 10 April 2024
  • Employment

New Guidance: Confidence to Recruit

The new Government guide in collaboration with the CIPD aims to give employers the confidence to recruit its workforce from a wider range of people including those who may have been overlooked in the past as a problem rather than an asset.

art
  • 03 April 2024
  • Employment

FAQ’s on the new Carer’s Leave Act

Beginning on 6 April 2024, the Carer’s Leave Act comes into force, meaning carers are now entitled to request 1 week’s unpaid leave to care for their dependants.