Community care assistant with severe asthma dismissed over face mask requirement: a failure to make reasonable adjustments
A community care assistant with severe asthma was summarily dismissed for not being able to wear a surgical mask. The tribunal found the employer failed to investigate alternatives or make reasonable adjustments.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #severe-asthma
- #face-mask-requirement
- #zero-hours-contract
- #failure-to-investigate
- #failure-to-make-reasonable-adjustments
- #knee-jerk-dismissal
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Community Care Assistant from 1 April 2015 to 2 December 2020.
- She had severe asthma since birth and was unable to wear a surgical face mask for more than 10 minutes.
- The respondent knew of her asthma throughout her employment and had previously accommodated it.
- On 2 December 2020, the respondent dismissed the claimant with immediate effect by telephone and email, citing her inability to wear a mask.
- The respondent did not carry out any investigation, consider alternatives, or offer a right of appeal.
- The tribunal found the claimant was disabled and that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments and discriminated against her.
Timeline
-
Employment application
Claimant specified she suffered from asthma on her application form.
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as a Community Care Assistant for the respondent.
-
First furlough period started
Claimant was furloughed due to being clinically extremely vulnerable because of severe asthma.
-
Return to work after first furlough
Claimant returned to work and expressed happiness to be back.
-
Electronic note about mask issue
Claimant submitted a note that she was unable to wear a surgical mask due to asthma.
-
Supervision meeting
Claimant stated she felt safe with her visor and other PPE; no discussion about mask requirement.
-
Second furlough period started
Claimant was furloughed again after receiving a shielding letter.
-
Dismissal
Ms Kirk called the claimant and terminated her employment with immediate effect because she could not wear a surgical mask.
-
Claim presented to tribunal
Claimant presented her claim for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and wrongful dismissal.
-
Liability hearing (day 1)
Tribunal heard evidence and submissions on liability.
-
Liability judgment sent to parties
Tribunal found in favour of the claimant on all claims.
-
Remedy hearing and settlement
Parties reached a settlement agreement; claim dismissed by withdrawal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing a long-serving employee with severe asthma for not wearing a surgical mask, and whether it failed to make reasonable adjustments or discriminated against her because of her disability.
The outcome
The tribunal found in favour of the claimant on all claims: unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, disability discrimination (section 15 EqA), and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The case was settled before a remedy hearing, so no compensation was awarded by the tribunal.
Key reasons:
- The employer knew about the claimant's severe asthma for over five years and had previously accommodated it.
- On 2 December 2020, the claimant was dismissed by telephone and email with no investigation, no meeting, no consideration of alternatives (e.g., visors), and no right of appeal.
- The employer's policy requiring surgical masks was applied rigidly without any attempt to find a reasonable adjustment.
- The tribunal found the claimant was disabled and that the employer's actions amounted to discrimination arising from disability and a failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must carry out a proper investigation and consider alternatives before dismissing an employee for a disability-related inability to comply with a workplace requirement.
- Long-serving employees with known disabilities are entitled to reasonable adjustments — a blanket policy without exceptions is likely to be discriminatory.
- A summary dismissal without notice, meeting, or appeal is almost always unfair, especially when the employee has five years' service.
- If an employee proposes an alternative (like a visor), the employer should genuinely consider it rather than dismissing on the spot.
This case illustrates how a rigid workplace policy, applied without any consideration of an employee's known disability, can lead to a finding of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The claimant had worked as a community care assistant for over five years, and her employer knew she had severe asthma from the day she applied. During the pandemic, when surgical masks became mandatory, she explained she could not wear one for more than ten minutes. Instead of exploring alternatives such as visors or different duties, the employer dismissed her by telephone the same day.
What went wrong
The employer failed at almost every step of a fair process. There was no investigation into the claimant's medical condition, no request for an occupational health report, and no meeting to discuss possible adjustments. The claimant had previously used a visor without issue, but this was not considered. The dismissal was summary — no notice, no right of appeal. The tribunal noted that even a basic inquiry would have revealed that alternatives existed and that the claimant could have continued working safely.
Why this matters
For employees with disabilities, this case reinforces that employers cannot simply apply a blanket policy without considering individual circumstances. The duty to make reasonable adjustments is proactive — employers must explore options before concluding that dismissal is the only answer. For anyone in a similar situation, the key takeaway is that a fair process requires investigation, consultation, and genuine consideration of alternatives. A knee-jerk dismissal, especially of a long-serving employee with a known disability, is highly likely to be found unfair and discriminatory.
Similar cases
Disabled employee required to prove medical appointments: victimisation and unfavourable treatment succeed
A former employee with a disability was awarded £3,892 after his employer demanded daily site diaries to verify attendance at medical appointments. The tribunal found this amounted to victimisation and unfavourable treatment arising from disability.
Nursery worker with disability unfairly dismissed and discriminated against
A nursery worker was unfairly dismissed and subjected to disability discrimination by Monkton Under 5 Playgroup. The tribunal awarded £27,676 in compensation, including £16,200 for injury to feelings.
Probationary dismissal of electrical engineer: discrimination claims rejected
An electrical engineer dismissed during his probationary period for poor performance and a safety incident failed to prove race, age or disability discrimination. The tribunal upheld the employer's decision.
Dump truck driver removed from client site: resignation, not dismissal
A dump truck driver on a zero-hours contract claimed he was unfairly dismissed after being removed from a client site, but the tribunal found he resigned. His claim failed.
