Who do I escalate this to?

jimi_man

JamoLew said:

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 

No it isn’t. People can’t wear masks for a variety of reasons, not all of the physical, some because they have an anxiety/been subject to DV/sexual assault etc. That’s why it’s so difficult and needs to be tested in court. 

od244051

Can we kick out customers when they should be self isolating. As my friend overheard a bloke earlier this year coughing "I've tested positive a couple of days ago and needed some milk"

GaleSF63

No amount of legislation or guidance will get through the armour of the "I'm an exception" mentality. 

wannabe_a_saver

JamoLew said:

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

If a person's disability means they can't wear a mask, then refusing them entry unless they wear a mask would be illegal discrimination due to the protected characteristic of their disability. 

Just as using a wheelchair, or crutches isn't a protected characteristic (because they are also used by people without disabilities) but if the reason a person uses them is their disability, then banning that person unless they leave their wheelchair or crutches outside, is illegal discrimination. 

Now, it might be that if a business owner was taken to court and put forward a defence that they had to protect their staff and that duty of care overrides the equality act, then they may be allowed to discriminate.  As far as I know though this hasn't yet been tested. 

wannabe_a_saver

jimi_man said:

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. 

Its not a blanket justification.  It has to be reasonable. 

jimi_man

wannabe_a_saver said:

JamoLew said:

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

If a person's disability means they can't wear a mask, then refusing them entry unless they wear a mask would be illegal discrimination due to the protected characteristic of their disability. 

Again, not quite correct. If the owner’s refusal of entry directly or indirectly affected all people with a disability then yes it would be discrimination. However it wouldn’t necessarily be illegal since the owner may have an objective justification for refusal. 

jimi_man

wannabe_a_saver said:

jimi_man said:

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. 

Its not a blanket justification.  It has to be reasonable. 

Correct. As to whether it’s reasonable - well as I said earlier, that’s down to the courts to decide. 

Leaving aside the legal aspects, a more sensible way to deal with non mask wearers (exempt, rather than people who refuse to wear them) is to ask them to use the shops at less busy times, or encourage more home delivery for them. 

wannabe_a_saver

jimi_man said:

wannabe_a_saver said:

JamoLew said:

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

If a person's disability means they can't wear a mask, then refusing them entry unless they wear a mask would be illegal discrimination due to the protected characteristic of their disability. 

Again, not quite correct. If the owner’s refusal of entry directly or indirectly affected all people with a disability then yes it would be discrimination. However it wouldn’t necessarily be illegal since the owner may have an objective justification for refusal. 

Its not necessary for the discriminatory action to affect all people with a disability, that would be completely insane given the huge variety of ways in which disability can impact people. 

Its not illegal if the discrimination is necessary.  That's what hasn't been tested, but given that the government guidelines have been clear that exemptions are allowed then I don't think it would stand up in court for say, entry to a shop.  If a nurse refused to wear their PPE at work, that would be different. 

unholyangel

jimi_man said:

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. 

You know that wearing a mask doesn't remove the risk? That those wearing masks are still posing a risk to other customers and staff? Are they going to refuse access to their staff members who can't wear a mask for medical reasons, because they pose a risk to shoppers/staff? 

WHO recommend NOT to use a single layer fabric mask. They recommend a mask should have 3 layers. An inner absorbent layer, a middle woven later and an outer non-absorbent layer. You're supposed to wash your hands before even touching the mask, never touch the front of the mask etc. 

How many people do you see wearing masks that fit that description? Because most people I see are wearing the single layer ones. Which they usually apply just before walking into the shop and don't stop to wash their hands or trolley/basket. 

Pollycat

unholyangel said:

You know that wearing a mask doesn't remove the risk? That those wearing masks are still posing a risk to other customers and staff? Are they going to refuse access to their staff members who can't wear a mask for medical reasons, because they pose a risk to shoppers/staff? 

WHO recommend NOT to use a single layer fabric mask. They recommend a mask should have 3 layers. An inner absorbent layer, a middle woven later and an outer non-absorbent layer. You're supposed to wash your hands before even touching the mask, never touch the front of the mask etc. 

How many people do you see wearing masks that fit that description? Because most people I see are wearing the single layer ones. Which they usually apply just before walking into the shop and don't stop to wash their hands or trolley/basket. 

But they are following government guidelines in wearing a face covering.

In the context of the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, a face covering is something which safely covers the nose and mouth.

There are many types of face coverings available. Cloth face coverings and disposable face coverings work best if they are made with multiple layers (at least 2) and form a good fit around the face. Bandanas or religious garments may be used but are likely to be less effective if they do not fit securely around the face.

Although it says that 2 layers work best, it doesn't say face coverings of at least 2 layers thick are mandatory.

(applies to England)