Opposition to COVID-19 measures not a protected philosophical belief, tribunal rules
A tribunal has ruled that a Senior Healthcare Assistant's opposition to the Coronavirus pandemic and preventative measures like PCR tests and face masks does not amount to a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010. The claim was dismissed.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #philosophical-belief
- #covid-19
- #pcr-test
- #face-mask
- #grainger-criteria
- #amendment-refused
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Senior Healthcare Assistant at Harefield Hospital for just over five years until dismissal on 22 January 2021.
- The claimant claimed unfair dismissal, discrimination on grounds of religion or belief, and arrears of pay.
- The claimant's asserted philosophical belief related to opposition to the Coronavirus pandemic and COVID-19 preventative measures.
- The tribunal found the claimant held strongly held opinions and views, not a philosophical belief protected under the Equality Act 2010.
- The claimant's application to amend her claim to include whistleblowing was refused as it was substantially out of time and would cause prejudice.
Timeline
-
Email regarding PCR test
The claimant sent an email (dated 3 August 2020 but referring to 31 July 2020) concerning being required to take a PCR test.
-
Datix report on face masks
The claimant raised concerns about face masks having loose synthetic fibres in a Datix report.
-
Whistleblowing concern raised
The claimant sent a document titled 'Raise a Whistleblowing Concern' to the respondent after her dismissal.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed from her role as Senior Healthcare Assistant.
-
Claim form presented
The claimant filed a claim for unfair dismissal, discrimination, and arrears of pay.
-
Email clarifying belief
The claimant stated her discrimination claim related to philosophical beliefs in nutrition and veganism, not coronavirus.
-
Further email on belief
The claimant reiterated her original claim was based on veganism but referenced a lack of belief in COVID-19.
-
Case management hearing
Employment Judge Tobin directed the claimant to clarify her claims and set a preliminary hearing on philosophical belief and amendment.
-
Claimant's witness statement
The claimant submitted a document titled 'Claimant's philosophical belief witness statement' which did not mention coronavirus, PCR tests, or masks.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Havard heard evidence and submissions on the philosophical belief issue and amendment application.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's opposition to the Coronavirus pandemic and COVID-19 preventative measures (PCR tests and face masks) amounted to a philosophical belief protected under section 10(2) of the Equality Act 2010, and whether to allow an amendment to add a whistleblowing claim.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant's belief did not qualify as a protected philosophical belief. The views were strongly held but lacked the necessary cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance to meet the Grainger criteria. The application to amend the claim to include whistleblowing was also refused as it was substantially out of time and would cause prejudice to the respondent.
Lessons & takeaways
- To be protected under the Equality Act, a philosophical belief must meet the Grainger criteria: it must be genuinely held, a belief (not an opinion or viewpoint), relate to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life, attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance, and be worthy of respect in a democratic society.
- Strongly held opinions on scientific or public health issues are unlikely to qualify as philosophical beliefs if they lack the depth and coherence of a belief system.
- If you wish to amend a claim to add a new cause of action, do so promptly; delays of several months may lead to refusal if the amendment is substantially out of time and causes prejudice.
- Representing yourself in a discrimination case can be challenging; the tribunal will apply the same legal tests but may not give leeway on procedural requirements.
When a strongly held view is not a protected belief
This case shows the limits of what counts as a philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010. The claimant, a Senior Healthcare Assistant with five years' service, argued that her opposition to the Coronavirus pandemic and measures such as PCR tests and face masks was a protected belief. However, the tribunal found that while her views were strongly held, they did not meet the legal test set out in the Grainger case.
What the tribunal considered
The tribunal applied the Grainger criteria, which require a belief to be genuinely held, relate to a weighty aspect of human life, and have a level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance. The claimant's views were described as opinions or viewpoints rather than a cohesive belief system. The tribunal noted that her statements shifted over time, initially linking her claim to veganism and later focusing on COVID-19, which undermined the consistency needed for a protected belief.
Why the result matters
This decision reinforces that not every strongly held opinion on a public health issue will be protected as a philosophical belief. For employees bringing discrimination claims based on belief, it is essential to clearly articulate a coherent and weighty belief system that meets the Grainger criteria. The case also highlights the importance of timely amendments to claims; the tribunal refused the claimant's late application to add a whistleblowing claim, as it was substantially out of time and would have caused prejudice to the NHS Trust.
Similar cases
Social worker's race discrimination claim over 'aggressive' stereotype dismissed
A black social worker with 15 years' service lost her claims of race discrimination and constructive dismissal after an altercation with a white colleague. The tribunal found no evidence of stereotyping or unfair treatment.
Before and after school club leader loses Covid-19 safety dismissal claim
A before and after school club leader who refused to attend work during the pandemic claiming serious and imminent danger has lost her unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found her belief was not reasonable given the school's risk assessments.
Bus driver dismissed for refusing alcohol test after collision: dismissal fair
A bus driver with 6 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after refusing a breath alcohol test following an at-fault collision. The tribunal also dismissed his discrimination and victimisation claims.
Covid vaccine refusal claims struck out after claimants fail to attend hearing
Two former employees of North East Autism Society who refused the Covid-19 vaccine had their unfair dismissal and discrimination claims struck out after failing to attend a preliminary hearing and comply with tribunal orders.