Care home workers' claims over Covid vaccine mandate struck out against government and regulator
An employment tribunal struck out unfair dismissal and discrimination claims brought by 127 care home workers against the government and the Care Quality Commission over the mandatory Covid-19 vaccination policy.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #covid-19-vaccination
- #care-home-workers
- #indirect-discrimination
- #schedule-22-exemption
- #strike-out
Key facts
- The claimants were care home workers who were dismissed or unable to work because they were not vaccinated against COVID-19.
- The government introduced regulations requiring care home workers to be vaccinated or have a medical exemption to enter care homes.
- The claimants brought claims of unfair dismissal and indirect discrimination against their employers and also against government and regulatory bodies.
- The tribunal struck out claims against the government and CQC respondents as having no reasonable prospects of success.
- The tribunal found that the employers were exempt from indirect discrimination claims under Schedule 22 of the Equality Act 2010.
Timeline
-
Regulations introduced
The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2021 were made, requiring care home workers to be vaccinated or have a medical exemption.
-
Operational Guidance issued
The Department of Health and Social Care issued operational guidance on vaccination of people working in care homes.
-
Updated Operational Guidance
A second version of the Operational Guidance was published, including links to medical exemption guidance.
-
Regulation came into force
The vaccination requirement became enforceable, meaning unvaccinated workers without medical exemption could not enter care homes.
-
Claim forms submitted
The claimants began submitting ET1 claim forms to the employment tribunal.
-
Claims joined
The President of the Employment Tribunals ordered the claims to be joined as a multiple.
-
Case management hearing
Employment Judge Maidment held a preliminary hearing to consider issues and set directions.
-
Preliminary hearing
A two-day hearing was held to determine strike out and deposit order applications by the government and CQC respondents and the claimants.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge Deeley struck out the claimants' claims against the government and CQC respondents.
The legal issue
Whether the Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care, Care Quality Commission, and its Chief Executive could be liable for instructing, causing, inducing, or aiding indirect discrimination against care home workers who were dismissed or unable to work due to the mandatory Covid-19 vaccination requirement.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out all claims against the government and CQC respondents, finding they had no reasonable prospects of success.
The key reasons were:
- The legislation requiring vaccination for care home workers was a lawful exercise of statutory power, not an instruction to discriminate.
- The government and CQC did not 'instruct, cause, induce, or aid' any discrimination by employers; they simply set the legal framework.
- Employers were independently responsible for implementing the requirement.
The claims against the individual care home employers (the First Respondents) were allowed to continue.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are dismissed due to a government-mandated policy, you may still have a claim against your employer, but it is very difficult to hold the government or regulator liable for discrimination.
- Claims against public bodies for 'instructing' or 'inducing' discrimination require clear evidence that they directed employers to discriminate, not just that they created a legal requirement.
- Schedule 22 of the Equality Act 2010 provides a broad exemption for acts done under statutory authority, which can defeat discrimination claims against employers who follow the law.
- Tribunals will strike out claims early if they have no reasonable prospects of success, saving time and costs for all parties.
What this case shows
This case involved 127 care home workers who were dismissed or unable to work because they were not vaccinated against Covid-19, as required by regulations introduced in 2021. They brought claims not only against their employers but also against the government and the Care Quality Commission (CQC), arguing that these bodies had instructed, caused, induced, or aided indirect discrimination.
The tribunal struck out the claims against the government and CQC at a preliminary stage, before any full hearing. The judge found that the legislation itself did not instruct or encourage discrimination — it simply set a legal requirement that employers had to follow. The government and CQC were not directing employers to treat unvaccinated workers unfavourably; they were creating a public health rule that applied equally to all.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimants' solicitor argued that the government and CQC had 'instructed' discrimination by issuing operational guidance and enforcing the regulations. However, the tribunal concluded that the guidance merely explained the law, and enforcement action by the CQC was about compliance with the regulations, not about discrimination. To succeed, the claimants would have needed to show that the government or CQC specifically intended to cause employers to discriminate against workers with protected characteristics — a very high bar.
Why this matters
This decision confirms that public bodies are generally not liable for discrimination claims arising from laws they create or enforce, unless they go beyond their statutory role. It also highlights the broad protection of Schedule 22 of the Equality Act 2010, which exempts acts done under statutory authority from discrimination claims. For care home workers and others affected by similar mandates, the focus should be on the employer's actions, not the government's policy-making. The claims against the individual employers are still proceeding, so the case may yet provide further guidance on how far employers must go to accommodate unvaccinated workers.
Similar cases
Warehouse operative's indirect discrimination claims over Covid-sceptic beliefs struck out
A warehouse operative who resigned after refusing to comply with face-covering and testing rules had his indirect discrimination and constructive dismissal claims struck out after failing to pay a deposit order.
Deposit orders and strike-out: what happens when a claimant fails to pay
A manager with 5 years' service had multiple discrimination and unfair dismissal claims struck out after failing to pay deposit orders totalling £125 per claim. The tribunal found some claims had little reasonable prospect of success.
Redundancy claim struck out for non-disclosure: costs of £6,853 awarded
A senior manager's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he failed to disclose documents about his new job. The tribunal ordered him to pay £6,853 in costs for unreasonable conduct.
Claim struck out after failure to comply with tribunal orders due to ill-health
A former employee's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims against Marks and Spencer were struck out after she failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not actively pursue her claim.