AB v CD Ltd

A claimant alleging disability must establish, on objective evidence, both a physical or mental impairment and its required adverse effect. A tribunal need not accept an asserted connection between a past condition and a new activity where the evidence does not objectively support it. Where a claimed psychological reaction is disputed, evidence may be required to show that it amounts to an impairment rather than an intense but ordinary reaction to an objectionable situation.

For indirect belief discrimination, there must be a sufficiently close and direct nexus between the belief and shared group disadvantage. A belief said to be neutral about whether adherents comply with a requirement cannot itself establish that disadvantage. A tribunal may assess the belief as pleaded and evidenced, rather than a narrower formulation advanced later.

The Claimant appealed from the Huntingdon Employment Tribunal’s decision that he was not disabled, that his asserted philosophical belief was not protected, and that his discrimination claims should be struck out.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, the Respondent required staff returning to its office to wear face coverings while moving around it, subject to medical exemption. The Claimant did not return because of his past panic attacks, a claimed profound psychological aversion to face coverings, and a belief in freedom, dignity, bodily autonomy and integrity.

The central issues were whether either asserted condition was an impairment under Equality Act 2010, whether the belief satisfied the Grainger criteria, and whether the facts could establish direct or indirect discrimination.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal made no error of law in finding that the Claimant had not established either asserted impairment and therefore had not established disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.

2. Disability requires proof of an impairment and proof that it has the specified adverse effect. Both questions are objective and must be determined on the evidence. The Tribunal was entitled to find no objective evidence that the Claimant’s historic propensity to panic attacks remained operative at the material time or that wearing a face covering would trigger an attack. General material concerning possible links between panic and mask-wearing did not establish that link for this Claimant.

3. The Tribunal was also entitled to reject the claimed psychological aversion. In the circumstances, it could not assume from the Claimant’s assertion alone that the reaction was an impairment rather than an intense reaction to a requirement he considered unjustified. The absence of psychological or medical evidence was material. Requiring evidence of an impairment did not reintroduce a requirement for a clinically well-recognised illness.

4. The Tribunal properly considered the philosophical belief as it had been pleaded and presented. It was not obliged to assess only a later, narrower formulation focused on bodily autonomy. The broader belief included matters which could undermine its cogency and cohesion under Grainger. Although the Tribunal’s reasoning on that point was incomplete, its conclusion was unarguably correct. In any event, the Claimant’s objection to mask-wearing was found to arise from his view of their effectiveness rather than a protected belief.

5. The indirect discrimination claim failed independently. The Claimant’s belief was said to be neutral as to whether any adherent could wear a mask. It therefore did not establish a sufficiently close and direct nexus between the policy and group disadvantage. The direct discrimination claim also failed because the mask policy applied equally to all employees and was not applied because of disability.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the appeal in [2025] EAT 73.
• Huntingdon Employment Tribunal: found that the Claimant was not disabled, that the asserted philosophical belief was not protected, and struck out the discrimination claims.