And speaking of parts of ourselves brings me to the case of Robinson v Nottingham Healthcare NHS 2025, the Employment Appeal Tribunal in which being made to cover up a part of the face became a disability discrimination issue.

Mrs Robinson was employed by Nottingham Healthcare NHS as a temporary staffing administrator from September 2020. Her employment commenced during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, a period marked by mandatory face masks across healthcare settings.

Mrs Robinson disclosed that she experienced significant psychological distress when required to wear a mask, citing her diagnosed generalised anxiety disorder and panic disorder. She asserted that mask-wearing triggered severe anxiety and panic attacks, and raised this concern with her employer, requesting alternative arrangements.

Despite her requests, Mrs Robinson’s concerns were not addressed, and she ultimately resigned in June 2022.

Mrs Robinson then filed a claim for disability discrimination to the Employment Tribunal. She argued that her mental health conditions constituted a disability under Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. According to the Act, a person is disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

At first instance, the ET dismissed her claim. The ET concluded that while Mrs Robinson did suffer from anxiety and panic disorder, the effects of these conditions did not meet the threshold for disability under the Equality Act. The ET found that her condition did not have a substantial adverse impact on her daily life and relied partly on her responses to a questionnaire designed to clarify her experience and the extent of her impairment. Her responses, in the ET’s view, did not indicate a need for medical treatment or other support that would suggest a severe or long-term impact.

Mrs Robinson then appealed the ET’s decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

The EAT allowed the appeal, criticising the original ET’s assessment of the evidence. It found that the ET had misapplied the legal test by "averaging" the impact of Mrs Robinson’s mental health condition over time, rather than focusing on its most serious or severe effects as required by law. The EAT emphasised that the correct approach is to examine the condition during its worst periods, not merely its day-to-day manageability.

Furthermore, the ET was found to have failed to give due weight to medical evidence and had too readily dismissed the credibility of Mrs Robinson’s account of how her condition affected her ability to work. The EAT concluded that the ET had erred in law in its assessment of whether Mrs Robinson was disabled, with the EAT affirming that the ET had not properly applied the statutory criteria or the relevant guidance on the definition of disability.

This case highlights several important lessons for employers. It reinforces that mental health conditions, such as anxiety and panic disorder, can legally qualify as disabilities under the Equality Act 2010 if they have a substantial and long-term impact on daily life.

Employers must take employee concerns seriously and explore reasonable adjustments rather than dismissing them, particularly when those concerns relate to health and well-being. Mishandling disability-related issues, especially involving mental health, can result in legal consequences and reputational damage. Fostering an inclusive, supportive approach is legally essential.