Dismissed for refusing a face mask: when anxiety is a disability
A service advisor with anxiety who was dismissed for refusing to wear a face mask has won her disability discrimination claim. The tribunal found the employer failed to consider her medical condition.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #disability-discrimination
- #anxiety
- #face-mask-exemption
- #constructive-knowledge
- #failure-to-enquire
- #covid-19
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a service advisor from 11 July 2019 to 15 October 2020.
- The claimant suffered from anxiety and panic attacks triggered by wearing face coverings, due to a past traumatic event.
- The claimant informed the respondent via text on 24 September 2020 that she could not wear a face mask due to severe distress.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for refusing to wear a face mask and failing to sanitise her hands.
- The tribunal found that the respondent had constructive knowledge of the claimant's disability as of 24 September 2020.
- The dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of the claimant's disability.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as a service advisor at the respondent's Volkswagen dealership in Knaresborough.
-
Claimant expressed concerns about face masks
Claimant emailed line manager Matt Brogden stating she did not consent to wearing a face mask for personal health reasons, citing respiratory and hearing concerns.
-
Government made face masks mandatory in shops
UK Government required face coverings in shops and supermarkets; claimant attempted to wear a mask and experienced panic attacks.
-
Government extended mask mandate to retail staff
Face coverings became mandatory for retail staff in England; claimant contacted Mr Brogden to discuss her inability to wear a mask.
-
Claimant sent text about severe distress
Claimant texted Mr Brogden explaining she physically could not wear a mask due to severe distress and a complete aversion to face coverings stemming from her teenage years.
-
GP diagnosed depressive disorder
Claimant saw her GP, who diagnosed depressive disorder and issued a sick note for depressed mood, valid from 25 September to 8 October 2020.
-
Investigation meeting with Mr Brogden
Claimant met with Mr Brogden; she refused to wear a mask or sanitise her hands. Mr Brogden suspended her and recommended disciplinary action.
-
Claimant dismissed
Disciplinary hearing held in claimant's absence; Mr Howes decided to summarily dismiss the claimant for refusing to wear a face mask and failing to sanitise hands.
-
Dismissal letter sent
Claimant received letter confirming dismissal, with right to appeal within five working days.
-
Appeal hearing (claimant did not attend)
Appeal hearing conducted in claimant's absence; decision to dismiss upheld by Mr Patterson on 6 November 2020.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known that the claimant was disabled, and whether her dismissal for refusing to wear a face mask was unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of her disability.
The outcome
The tribunal ruled in favour of the claimant, finding that she was disabled due to anxiety and panic attacks triggered by wearing face coverings. The respondent had constructive knowledge of her disability from 24 September 2020, when she texted her manager explaining her severe distress. The dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of her disability.
- The tribunal found the respondent failed to make reasonable enquiries or consider alternatives before dismissing.
- Damages are to be determined at a separate remedy hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should take seriously any communication from an employee about a medical condition, even if it is not formally diagnosed at the time.
- When an employee raises a health-related objection to a workplace requirement, the employer should investigate and consider reasonable adjustments before taking disciplinary action.
- A disability can include mental impairments like anxiety, especially if they have substantial and long-term effects on day-to-day activities.
- Constructive knowledge of a disability can arise from the employee's own description of their symptoms, even without a formal diagnosis.
This case highlights the importance of employers taking employees' health concerns seriously, particularly when they relate to a hidden disability like anxiety. The claimant, a service advisor at a VW dealership, suffered from panic attacks triggered by wearing face coverings due to a past traumatic event. When face masks became mandatory for retail staff in September 2020, she informed her manager via text that she could not wear one because of severe distress.
Instead of exploring alternatives or seeking medical advice, the employer suspended the claimant and later dismissed her for refusing to wear a mask and failing to sanitise her hands. The tribunal found that from the date of that text, the employer had constructive knowledge of her disability – meaning they should have known she was disabled even without a formal diagnosis. The dismissal was therefore unfavourable treatment arising from her disability.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have asked for further medical evidence, considered reasonable adjustments such as alternative roles or face visors, or engaged with the claimant's GP. Instead, they rushed to dismissal without proper investigation. The tribunal noted that the claimant's GP had diagnosed depressive disorder just days after her text, which the employer could have discovered if they had paused the disciplinary process.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that disability discrimination law protects employees with mental impairments, including anxiety, even when the condition is not immediately obvious. Employers must not assume that a refusal to comply with a workplace rule is insubordination – it may be a symptom of a disability. The outcome also shows that a short period of service does not prevent a discrimination claim, unlike unfair dismissal which requires two years' service.
Similar cases
Agency driver dismissed over mask exemption: unfair dismissal but no disability discrimination
An agency driver who was dismissed after his mask exemption led to a dispute with a healthcare provider has won his unfair dismissal claim, but the tribunal found he was not an employee of the company that refused his services.
Swimming teachers dismissed after furlough dispute: a conduct dismissal that went wrong
A tribunal found that Achieve Lifestyle Ltd unfairly dismissed two swimming teachers after a dispute over furlough pay, and failed to make reasonable adjustments for one teacher with breast cancer.
Furlough refusal during pandemic: HGV driver's constructive dismissal claim fails
An HGV driver with COPD who resigned after his employer refused to furlough him in November 2020 has lost his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims. The tribunal found the employer correctly interpreted the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme rules.
Head butler dismissed by redundancy after Brexit and COVID: claim fails
A head butler with six years' service lost his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims after a tribunal found his redundancy was genuine and fairly handled.