Who do I escalate this to?

wannabe_a_saver

od244051 said:

Shops do have the rights to refuse entry for people. People have been banned from shops for theft, abuse to shop staff etc.

You can someone for being a shoplifter, because being a shoplifter isn’t a protected characteristic under the equality act.  You can’t ban someone for being male/female, too old/too young, Muslim/Christian/Hindu/Jewish, transgender/gay/intersex or for having a disability because those are protected characteristics under the equality act (among others).

Thrugelmir

If somebody walked into a shop with a visible sign of being infected by measles. Would it be discriminatory to eject them? 

wannabe_a_saver

Thrugelmir said:

If somebody walked into a shop with a visible sign of being infected by measles. Would it be discriminatory to eject them? 

It would be discrimination, but it would not be illegal discrimination as having measles is not a protected characteristic. 
Its also perfectly legal to discriminate based on shoe size, odour or whether someone prefers Star Wars or Star Trek, discrimination is only against the law when its due to one of the protected characteristics under the equality act. 

Thrugelmir

wannabe_a_saver said:

Thrugelmir said:

If somebody walked into a shop with a visible sign of being infected by measles. Would it be discriminatory to eject them? 

It would be discrimination, but it would not be illegal discrimination as having measles is not a protected characteristic. 
Its also perfectly legal to discriminate based on shoe size, odour or whether someone prefers Star Wars or Star Trek, discrimination is only against the law when its due to one of the protected characteristics under the equality act. 

Given that Directors carry a legal personal liability for the Health & Safety of their Employees.  One suspects that this would provide a defence. 

Pollycat

MrsFlahdeblah said:

Thank you for all the replies, very interesting. I did in fact wear a mask when we were initially told to do so. Ended up in A&E. Wore visor... 15 mind later paramedics called. So for those who say they just don't understand why people say they can't - in my case it's genuine. My GP advised me not to and is happy to confirm my reason for exemption. BTW I'm not in any of the age categories of those you say refuse to wear a mask nor so I live in the North or in a council flat.
I have been in talks with Rethink who say I absolutely should persue it as it is illegal discrimination and must be highlighted. I'll post back when I know where they suggest things go from here. 
Some of you ask why? Because any discrimination is illegal. If this was also about my skin colour, religion or sexuality would you suggest not bothering too.
Rethink are saying it is an offence which needs highlighting and reporting. 

I don't think you say in your original post whether there are signs up in this place regarding wearing a face covering or if it was just a conversation with an employee.

He may have said it was company policy but he may have been overstepping the limit of his authority and may not actually have been speaking on behalf of the company at all.

You've emailed them, the ball is in their court.

Why not wait and see if you do get a reply and if their reply is acceptable to you.

They may apologise and say that they've revised their policy after reading what you have to say.

Or they may say that it's not company policy to refuse entry to people not wearing face coverings and they've reiterated this to all members of staff.

Would that be acceptable to you?

wannabe_a_saver

Thrugelmir said:

wannabe_a_saver said:

Thrugelmir said:

If somebody walked into a shop with a visible sign of being infected by measles. Would it be discriminatory to eject them? 

It would be discrimination, but it would not be illegal discrimination as having measles is not a protected characteristic. 
Its also perfectly legal to discriminate based on shoe size, odour or whether someone prefers Star Wars or Star Trek, discrimination is only against the law when its due to one of the protected characteristics under the equality act. 

Given that Directors carry a legal personal liability for the Health & Safety of their Employees.  One suspects that this would provide a defence. 

A defence of what?  

Exceptions have to be justified and necessary, financial reasons are not acceptable as an excuse.

Barny1979

The safety of their staff?

JamoLew

Is the lack of ability to wear a mask actually a recognised disability ?

Whilst the  underlying condition may be the cause - this isn’t what potential refusal of access is based on (IMO)

As already stated - this has yet to be tested in the courts 

booneruk

Though, my biggest bug bear is those people who only wear masks if they may get asked, but have them under their chins at the earliest opportunity, though they should still be wearing it.

The "chin-warmer" has to rank as one of the most annoying type of mask-idiots out there.

Surely they know they're doing it wrong, in which case it's just two fingers up at everyone - or perhaps they're just lacking mentally and can't project that those around them are wearing masks differently to them. I'm more disappointed in this type of human, I'd rather they just go completely maskless.

jimi_man

wannabe_a_saver said:

Thrugelmir said:

wannabe_a_saver said:

Thrugelmir said:

If somebody walked into a shop with a visible sign of being infected by measles. Would it be discriminatory to eject them? 

It would be discrimination, but it would not be illegal discrimination as having measles is not a protected characteristic. 
Its also perfectly legal to discriminate based on shoe size, odour or whether someone prefers Star Wars or Star Trek, discrimination is only against the law when its due to one of the protected characteristics under the equality act. 

Given that Directors carry a legal personal liability for the Health & Safety of their Employees.  One suspects that this would provide a defence. 

A defence of what?  

Exceptions have to be justified and necessary, financial reasons are not acceptable as an excuse.

He didn’t mention financial reasons but Health and Safety. Which is a valid justification. On the basis that letting in people without masks presents a risk to other customers and staff.