Interesting test case, I think the mistake the employee made was using the equalities act. I wonder if she was advised/represented by a TU?
“Come to work and you’ll risk hospitalisation or death so work from home if you can” was the message in 2020. If you can’t work from home then you have to risk death? Sounds like a dystopian nighmare for workers.
The case shouldn’t have been allowed to go to court in the first place.
Based on her argument, anyone with any kind of fear would be able to refuse to go to work had she succeeded in her claim.
>In his ruling, the employment judge Mark Leach said he accepted the woman had a genuine fear but he did not believe it met the criteria for a “philosophical belief” that would be protected under section 10 of the Equality Act 2010.
Can’t say I disagree.
So, [trans-exclusionary views](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_Forstater_v_Centre_for_Global_Development) are protected under the Equality Act 2010, but a person fearing something that actually poses a threat to them is not. The UK legal system has done it again, folks. The system will never cease to amaze with the extent and flexibility with which it bends itself over backwards to fuck over trans people.
EDIT: In case I’m being downvoted for non-transphobic reasons, I don’t personally hold an opinion on whether this ruling is right or not, I just want interpretations of the Equality Act to be at least somewhat consistent. I don’t think it should be up to employment tribunals to decide case-by-case what constitutes a valid political philosophy as these rulings suggest.
EDIT 2: You can stop logging into puppet accounts to downvote me now, transphobes. I have almost half as many downvotes as the main post as upvotes and this community is nowhere near united enough on any position on trans rights to produce such unanimous disapproval. I know this is how you few thousand sad, sad people operate. If dogpiling me hasn’t filled the radicalisation-induced void in your heart by now, it never will.
Wonder if it’d be any different if they were capable of working from home?
UK worker who stayed *at* home, not UK worker who “stayed home”.
> “This was at the time of the start of the second wave of Covid-19 and the huge increase in cases of the virus throughout the country.”
Which, while definitely an issue, was also at a time where the work from home advice was only a guideline, not an order, in most of the country. We were also in a much better position to treat people with COVID and had a partially functioning test and trace system. There were definitely risks associated with working in an office but those would probably have been better raised with HSE or with her employer directly than just staying at home. Her concerns were valid but she went about them the wrong way and her employer is right to withhold pay.
Good, the Key workers had to go to work while far too many others took the right piss, and she TOOK the piss.
​
​
The P45 is in the post, and hopefully more Piss takers receive theirs.
​
​
​
We’re talking those that seem to always catch Covid and end up off for months at a time, we’re talking those that refused to get the Vaccine but yet then end up with Covid again, we’re talking those that faked their Jabs and took weeks off at a time and then got asked for their proof and turns out to had lied.
I work in HR and specialise in ER and have been fascinated by the covid related claims. There has yet to be ANY claim made by an employee that is reasonable.
I worked throughout the pandemic. The first few months at home, I had to field queries from extremely worried people at a time when we knew very little about risks and a vaccine wasn’t anything tangible. Anyone considered extremely vulnerable was shielded and those who lived with EV family members were moved whenever possible. Sadly, as retail workers, this wasn’t always possible. The savvy ones got fit notes for stress from their doctors. The claimant in this case should have done the same. As long as an organisation does all they can to protect people in line with government guidelines then theyre meeting requirements and its unreasonable for someone to refuse to attend work.
The annoying thing is there are so many orgs out there who didn’t look after their people, who put them in danger, and cases like this delay or prevent them being heard.
10 comments
Interesting test case, I think the mistake the employee made was using the equalities act. I wonder if she was advised/represented by a TU?
“Come to work and you’ll risk hospitalisation or death so work from home if you can” was the message in 2020. If you can’t work from home then you have to risk death? Sounds like a dystopian nighmare for workers.
The case shouldn’t have been allowed to go to court in the first place.
Based on her argument, anyone with any kind of fear would be able to refuse to go to work had she succeeded in her claim.
>In his ruling, the employment judge Mark Leach said he accepted the woman had a genuine fear but he did not believe it met the criteria for a “philosophical belief” that would be protected under section 10 of the Equality Act 2010.
Can’t say I disagree.
So, [trans-exclusionary views](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_Forstater_v_Centre_for_Global_Development) are protected under the Equality Act 2010, but a person fearing something that actually poses a threat to them is not. The UK legal system has done it again, folks. The system will never cease to amaze with the extent and flexibility with which it bends itself over backwards to fuck over trans people.
EDIT: In case I’m being downvoted for non-transphobic reasons, I don’t personally hold an opinion on whether this ruling is right or not, I just want interpretations of the Equality Act to be at least somewhat consistent. I don’t think it should be up to employment tribunals to decide case-by-case what constitutes a valid political philosophy as these rulings suggest.
EDIT 2: You can stop logging into puppet accounts to downvote me now, transphobes. I have almost half as many downvotes as the main post as upvotes and this community is nowhere near united enough on any position on trans rights to produce such unanimous disapproval. I know this is how you few thousand sad, sad people operate. If dogpiling me hasn’t filled the radicalisation-induced void in your heart by now, it never will.
Wonder if it’d be any different if they were capable of working from home?
UK worker who stayed *at* home, not UK worker who “stayed home”.
> “This was at the time of the start of the second wave of Covid-19 and the huge increase in cases of the virus throughout the country.”
Which, while definitely an issue, was also at a time where the work from home advice was only a guideline, not an order, in most of the country. We were also in a much better position to treat people with COVID and had a partially functioning test and trace system. There were definitely risks associated with working in an office but those would probably have been better raised with HSE or with her employer directly than just staying at home. Her concerns were valid but she went about them the wrong way and her employer is right to withhold pay.
Good, the Key workers had to go to work while far too many others took the right piss, and she TOOK the piss.
​
​
The P45 is in the post, and hopefully more Piss takers receive theirs.
​
​
​
We’re talking those that seem to always catch Covid and end up off for months at a time, we’re talking those that refused to get the Vaccine but yet then end up with Covid again, we’re talking those that faked their Jabs and took weeks off at a time and then got asked for their proof and turns out to had lied.
I work in HR and specialise in ER and have been fascinated by the covid related claims. There has yet to be ANY claim made by an employee that is reasonable.
I worked throughout the pandemic. The first few months at home, I had to field queries from extremely worried people at a time when we knew very little about risks and a vaccine wasn’t anything tangible. Anyone considered extremely vulnerable was shielded and those who lived with EV family members were moved whenever possible. Sadly, as retail workers, this wasn’t always possible. The savvy ones got fit notes for stress from their doctors. The claimant in this case should have done the same. As long as an organisation does all they can to protect people in line with government guidelines then theyre meeting requirements and its unreasonable for someone to refuse to attend work.
The annoying thing is there are so many orgs out there who didn’t look after their people, who put them in danger, and cases like this delay or prevent them being heard.