Knaresborough woman who refused to wear face mask unfairly dismissed, tribunal rules

An employment tribunal has ruled that a Knaresborough woman was unfairly treated when she was dismissed from her job for refusing to wear a face mask.

Laura Convery worked at the Volkswagen dealership in Knaresborough from July 2019 until October 2020.

Staff at the dealership were sent an email in May 2020 by British Street Fourth Investments Ltd, which owns the dealership, about a return to work and to follow a covid policy in which they were asked to wear masks and social distance.

The tribunal, which was held in Leeds, heard that Ms Convery had refused to wear a face mask because it gave her “panic attacks” and anxiety.

She said she had tried to wear a face covering in supermarkets when the government made them mandatory, but it caused her “severe distress”.

The company offered her the chance to wear a visor instead, but she declined. This led her line manager, Matt Brodgen, to suspend her.

Ms Convery later told Mr Brogden, in a text message in September 2020:

“I physically cannot wear one [a face covering], I have tried on more than one occasion since July 24 and I just can’t do it.

“It creates severe distress for a number of reasons. The main one being that I have a complete aversion to anything covering my face, which stems back from my teenage years I believe.

“I wasn’t aware that this was even a problem until I have tried to wear a face covering in recent months, but it transpires that it is a huge problem for me.”

Read more:

Ms Convery was invited to a disciplinary meeting the following October, but said she did not attend after increased stress and anxiety had led to her to being signed off work by her GP.

The dealership terminated her employment with immediate effect on October 15.

Anxiety impairment

However, the tribunal found that Ms Convery had been unfairly treated in her dismissal because “of something arising in consequence of her disability in contravention of section 15 of the Equality Act 2010”.

A judgement published by the tribunal concluded that she was “unable to wear a face covering because of her anxiety impairment”.

The tribunal also found that the company could not have known about Ms Convery’s disability before her text message in September.

However, it added:

“The respondent, the tribunal concludes, ought reasonably to have made further enquiries whether through its occupational health service provider or directly to the claimants own GP from which it is likely it would have become aware of the claimant’s disabling condition.”