Support worker dismissed for refusing face mask: tribunal upholds conduct dismissal
A support worker with 7 years' service was fairly dismissed after refusing to wear a face mask or a visor in the office. The tribunal found the employer acted within the band of reasonable responses.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a support worker from 10 March 2014 until dismissal on 20 February 2021.
- The claimant refused to wear a face mask in the office, citing personal beliefs about mask efficacy and health risks.
- The respondent offered the claimant a visor as an alternative, which the claimant did not accept.
- The claimant did not provide medical evidence of a mask exemption during the internal process.
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after a disciplinary hearing and appeal.
Timeline
-
Claimant emails refusal to wear mask in office
Claimant sent an email to his team leader explaining his reasons for refusing to wear a mask in the office, citing health concerns and lack of evidence for mask efficacy.
-
Claimant suspended
The claimant was suspended without pay for refusing to wear a face mask in the office.
-
Investigatory meeting
An investigatory meeting was held where the claimant stated he would rather find another job than wear a mask in the office.
-
Offer of visor alternative
Ms Cooke offered the claimant the option to wear a visor instead of a face mask in the office, but the claimant did not accept.
-
Disciplinary hearing
A disciplinary hearing was held by telephone, chaired by Ms Birch. The claimant did not raise anxiety as a reason for not wearing a mask.
-
Dismissal decision
Ms Birch sent a letter dismissing the claimant for gross misconduct due to refusal to wear a face mask in the office.
-
Appeal hearing
An appeal hearing was held by telephone, chaired by Ms Downes. The claimant's conduct was noted as difficult.
-
Appeal decision
Ms Downes upheld the dismissal decision, finding no evidence of a valid medical exemption.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's decision to dismiss for refusing to follow a reasonable workplace policy (face mask requirement) fell within the band of reasonable responses, given the employee's personal objections and lack of medical evidence.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim, finding that Creative Support Ltd acted reasonably throughout.
- The employer offered a reasonable alternative (visor) which the claimant refused.
- The claimant did not provide medical evidence of a mask exemption during the internal process.
- The disciplinary and appeal processes were thorough and fair.
- No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you have a medical reason for not following a workplace policy, get a doctor's note and submit it during the internal process.
- Refusing a reasonable alternative offered by your employer (like a visor instead of a mask) weakens your case.
- Personal beliefs about policy effectiveness are unlikely to justify refusal if the policy is lawful and proportionate.
- A fair process with suspension, investigation, hearing, and appeal can protect an employer from an unfair dismissal claim.
A reasonable policy, a reasonable process
This case shows that even a long-serving employee can be fairly dismissed for refusing to follow a workplace policy, provided the employer acts reasonably. The support worker had seven years' service but was dismissed after refusing to wear a face mask in the office during the pandemic. He cited personal beliefs about mask efficacy and health risks, but did not provide medical evidence to support an exemption.
Creative Support Ltd offered a visor as an alternative, which the claimant also refused. The tribunal noted that the employer had a legitimate aim in protecting staff and service users, and the mask policy was a proportionate response. The disciplinary process included suspension, an investigatory meeting, a disciplinary hearing, and an appeal — all conducted fairly.
What the employer did right
The employer could have simply dismissed without offering alternatives, but instead offered a visor. It also gave the claimant multiple opportunities to provide medical evidence, which he did not. The tribunal found that the decision to dismiss fell within the band of reasonable responses — the legal test for fairness in conduct dismissals.
What this means for similar claims
Employees who object to workplace policies on personal grounds should be aware that their beliefs, without supporting evidence, are unlikely to override a reasonable policy. The case also highlights the importance of engaging with the employer's process: refusing alternatives and failing to provide medical evidence can be fatal to a claim. For employers, following a fair procedure and offering reasonable adjustments can defend against unfair dismissal claims even when the employee disagrees with the policy.
Similar cases
Anxiety as a disability: tribunal finds mixed anxiety-depressive disorder is a long-term impairment
A former employee has been found to be disabled under the Equality Act 2010 due to anxiety, after the tribunal accepted that her condition had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on daily activities.
Dismissed for refusing to work from home during Covid: a conduct decision that went too far
A customer service advisor with Ménière's disease was unfairly dismissed after refusing to work from home when her face shield was banned. The tribunal reduced her compensation by 75% for her own conduct.
Security officer dismissed after grievance over face mask policy: tribunal upholds employer's decision
A security officer with only seven months' service was fairly dismissed for aggressive behaviour and misuse of the grievance policy after repeatedly challenging his employer's face mask rules during the pandemic. The tribunal rejected all claims of automatic unfair dismissal and discrimination.
Delivery driver dismissed for speeding: a fair decision despite live warning
An online delivery driver with a live final written warning was fairly dismissed after speeding 30% over the limit. The tribunal upheld Sainsbury's decision, finding it fell within the band of reasonable responses.