The eagle-eyed of you might have spotted a recent news story; straplines such as 'sacked care worker’s vaccine beliefs were religious' were popular. The case reported was a preliminary hearing involving a care worker, Ms Wierowska. Despite the story making the national press, beyond the transcript of judgement, there is very little information available.  

What do we know?

This was a preliminary hearing on the issue of whether Ms Weirowska’s views of vaccines stemmed from her religious belief – there has been no substantive hearing and no binding decision. The judge found that they did and hence she was protected from discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.

For her views to be connected to a religious belief, the judge ruled that there must be some intrinsic connection between her belief and her views on vaccines. The judge concluded this was the case for Ms Weirowska. Interestingly, her views were not consistent with all of the Roman Catholic Church's ones nor the announcements of the Pope on the Covid-19 vaccination. They were, however, linked sufficiently to other teachings of the church, most notably on abortion.

This is the first case we have seen which raises the potential for religious discrimination in a 'no jab, no job' policy.

The dismissal occurred in April 2021 so prior to the introduction of the short-lived mandatory vaccination regulations.

Learning Points

• This is not relevant to cases brought when the mandatory vaccination regulations were in place. The Equality Act 2010 provides that acts cannot be discriminatory on the grounds of religion, age, or disability if an employer acts in accordance with the law. 
• We have always been aware and advised on the risk of such types of discrimination claims with a 'no jab, no job' policy. What the transcript of the judge’s ruling confirms, however, is that a religious discrimination claim will not succeed unless a claimant can prove that there is this connection between their vaccination views and their faith. The judge noted that in this case there was a 'direct nexus between [her] refusal to take the Covid-19 vaccine and her underlying belief'. An employee who claims they cannot have the jab because of their faith must still demonstrate that connection.

Ms Weirowska’s case concerned her religious belief. Employees who refuse vaccination on account of their philosophical belief will need to show this connection between the two but will also need to show that their philosophical belief meets the Grainger criteria ('The belief must be genuinely held. (ii) It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available. (iii) It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour'). This would apply if the employee bought a claim arguing that their anti-vaccination views were a philosophical belief.  

If you are continuing to use a 'no jab, no job' policy, we would advise you to seek specific advice regards the ongoing risk within your organisation of continuing with this policy.  

Whilst the judge makes it clear that there are 'hoops' to jump through before bringing a discrimination claim, such a policy may present a risk that, considering the falling death and infection rates, you may not want to take.