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.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a warehouse operative from 1 May 2015 to 19 July 2021.
- The respondent introduced practices requiring face coverings, surface disinfection, and periodic Covid-19 testing.
- The claimant held Covid-sceptic beliefs that testing is flawed, masks are unhealthy, and disinfecting is ineffective.
- The claimant resigned on 19 July 2021, citing a culmination of restrictions and poor management.
- The claimant failed to pay a deposit order of £250 per claim, leading to strike out.
- The indirect discrimination claim based on Christianity was struck out for no reasonable prospects.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as a warehouse operative for Tempur UK Ltd.
-
Resignation
Claimant resigned, citing a culmination of restrictions and poor management.
-
Conciliation started
ACAS conciliation period began.
-
Conciliation ended
ACAS conciliation period ended.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented a claim form to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Response presented
Respondent filed an ET3 response.
-
Preliminary hearing (private)
Employment Judge Alliott conducted a preliminary hearing by telephone.
-
Preliminary hearing (public)
Employment Judge George heard strike out and deposit order applications.
-
Deposit order sent
Claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £250 per claim.
-
Final judgment
Claims struck out due to non-payment of deposit.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's indirect discrimination claims based on Christianity and Covid-sceptic beliefs, and his constructive unfair dismissal claim, had reasonable prospects of success, and whether they should be struck out or subject to deposit orders.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the claim of indirect discrimination based on Christianity because it had no reasonable prospects of success. The remaining claims (indirect discrimination based on Covid-sceptic beliefs and constructive unfair dismissal) were subject to a deposit order of £250 each, but the claimant failed to pay, leading to their strike out.
- No compensation was awarded as the claims were struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- Deposit orders are serious: failing to pay them on time will result in your claim being struck out, regardless of its merits.
- If you bring a claim based on a philosophical belief like Covid-scepticism, you must show that the belief is genuinely held and cogent, and that the employer's policy put you at a particular disadvantage.
- Indirect discrimination claims based on religion or belief require evidence of group disadvantage, not just personal inconvenience.
- Acting in person can be challenging; seeking advice or representation early may help you understand procedural requirements like deposit orders.
This case shows the procedural hurdles that can derail an employment tribunal claim, even before the merits are fully tested. The claimant, a warehouse operative with six years' service, resigned from Tempur UK Ltd in July 2021, citing a culmination of Covid-19 restrictions and poor management. He believed that face coverings, surface disinfection, and periodic testing were ineffective and unhealthy, and that his employer's insistence on these measures amounted to indirect discrimination on grounds of his religion or belief.
However, the tribunal had already found that the claim based on Christianity had no reasonable prospects of success and struck it out. For the remaining claims, a deposit order of £250 per claim was imposed, meaning the claimant had to pay a total of £500 to proceed. When he failed to pay, the claims were automatically struck out. This outcome highlights how critical it is to comply with tribunal orders, especially deposit orders, which are designed to weed out weak claims.
What the employer did right
Tempur UK Ltd responded promptly to the claim and made applications to strike out or obtain deposit orders. The tribunal agreed that the Christianity-based claim lacked prospects, and the deposit order for the other claims was a reasonable step to manage the proceedings. The employer also engaged counsel to present a clear skeleton argument, which likely helped the tribunal see the weaknesses in the claimant's case.
What the claimant could have done differently
The claimant, acting in person, struggled with preparation and missed the deadline for paying the deposit. Even if he believed his claims were strong, he needed to follow the procedural rules. Seeking advice from a solicitor or a citizens advice bureau might have helped him understand the importance of the deposit order and the need to pay on time. Alternatively, he could have applied for an extension or a variation of the order if he had financial difficulties.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that employment tribunals have powers to strike out claims at an early stage if they appear to have no reasonable prospects or if the claimant fails to comply with orders. For anyone considering a similar claim, it is essential to take procedural requirements seriously and to ensure that the legal basis of the claim is sound from the outset.
Similar cases
Constructive dismissal claims survive strike-out attempt: lessons for employers on trust and confidence
An experienced HR professional's claims of constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination will proceed to a full hearing after the tribunal refused to strike them out, though deposit orders were made.
Part-time worker's constructive dismissal claim fails: tribunal rejects less favourable treatment allegations
A former employee who resigned and claimed constructive dismissal over part-time worker rights and national minimum wage issues has had all her claims dismissed by an employment tribunal.
Lorry driver with 18 days' service: unfair dismissal struck out but discrimination claims survive
A lorry driver who resigned after 18 days and later worked as an agency driver was unable to claim unfair dismissal due to short service, but his disability and race discrimination claims will proceed to a final hearing.
NHS consultant's constructive dismissal claim struck out after failing to pay deposit
A psychiatrist's claim for constructive unfair dismissal against an NHS trust was struck out after she failed to pay a £400 deposit ordered by the tribunal. The claim had previously survived a strike-out application.