Fear of catching Covid “not a protected belief”, tribunal rules

Covid: Fear was not a belief

A woman’s fear of catching Covid-19 and need to protect herself and others is not a philosophical belief for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, an employment tribunal has ruled.

Employment Judge Mark Leach in Manchester said this meant she was not discriminated against on the grounds of religion or belief when she refused to go to work.

In July 2020, the unnamed claimant decided not to return to work on the grounds of health and safety.

She told the tribunal: “I had reasonable and justifiable health and safety concerns about the workplace surrounding Covid-19, and I was also very worried about the increasing spread of the virus.

“I had a genuine fear of getting the virus myself, and a fear of passing it on to my partner (who is at high risk of getting seriously unwell from Covid-19).”

Her employer withheld her wages, saying he did not consider her belief reasonable.

Her case included a complaint of unlawful discrimination and Judge Leach looked at whether her fear of catching Covid and a need to protect herself and others was, as she claimed, a protected philosophical belief.

He held that this failed to meet the requirement that it must be a belief and not “an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available”.

Judge Leach said her fear did not amount to a belief. “Rather, it is a reaction to a threat of physical harm and the need to take steps to avoid or reduce that threat. Most (if not all) people, instinctively react to perceived or real threats of physical harm in one way or another.”

The fear could also be described as “a widely held opinion based on the present state of information available that taking certain steps, for example attending a crowded place during the height of the current pandemic, would increase the risk of contracting Covid-19 and may therefore be dangerous”, the judge continued.

“Few people may argue against that. However, a fear of physical harm and views about how best to reduce or avoid a risk of physical harm is not a belief for the purposes of section 10 [of the Equality Act 2010].”

Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Clinical negligence, a changing market – part 1

The consolidation of law firms through merger and acquisition has resulted in fewer, but more sophisticated and expert clinical negligence practices.

How to set your law firm up for success in 2022

At this time of year, law firms around the country are busy strategising and implementing plans for the coming 12 months. Forward-planning is a crucial part of a firm’s success, but where to start?

Are you ready to sign a personal guarantee to secure your indemnity insurance?

Perhaps the most worrying trend we are seeing in the professional indemnity market is the increased scrutiny of the financial position of SME law firms and demand for personal guarantees.

Loading animation