Mandatory Face Mask Policy Was Justified

What Were the Facts of the Case?

In the case of Shields v Alliance Healthcare Management Services, Ms Shields worked as a warehouse operative. Due to the pandemic, Alliance introduced a mandatory face mask policy in January 2021 across all their UK sites. Ms Shields refused to wear a face mask due to her vertigo, which was held to be a disability. Wearing a mask caused shortness of breath, anxiety and panic which could trigger vertigo for the claimant.

Alliance was aware that the mandatory face mask policy could prevent medically exempt employees from attending work. Where these individuals were identified, reasonable adjustments were put in place where possible (such as working from home). However, Ms Shields was not able to work from home due to the nature of her role.

Alliance had tried to find alternative solutions that would allow Ms Shields to attend work. They considered staggered break times and isolated working. However, Ms Shields would still be required to wear a face mask when moving around the building and in common areas. They also offered Ms Shields the opportunity to wear alternative face coverings, such as a visor. Ms Shields said she could not wear any kind of face covering due to her condition.

Ms Shields resigned in January 2022 and brought claims including the failure to make reasonable adjustments and indirect disability discrimination.

What Did the Tribunal Decide?

The ET found that the facemask policy was put in place due to the legitimate aim of protecting the health and safety of Alliance's workforce, based on what was known of the virus at the time. The Tribunal found that Alliance had done all it could to remove any disadvantage suffered by Ms Shields due to her condition. There was nothing more Alliance could have done to achieve the aims of the policy. Alliance had acted reasonably and proportionately towards Ms Shields. The Tribunal dismissed Ms Shields' claims.

What Can Employers Learn?

This is a first instance decision so it is not binding on other Tribunals. It is nevertheless a useful demonstration of where the line can be drawn in reasonable adjustment claims. In this case, Alliance gave real thought and effort to finding a workaround that would protect both the organisation and Ms Shields. The duty did not extend to making 'unreasonable' adjustments, such as exempting Ms Shields from the requirement to cover her face altogether.

For more information, please contact Sharmin Chowdhury in our Employment team on 01923 919 373, or complete the form below.