Woman thrown out of Sainsbury's for not wearing a mask.

[Viviennemary]

When asked why she wasn't wearing one she told the police they were not allowed to challenge her or ask about her disability. (wrong apparently). She said she'd be taking them to court. Police have criticised ministers for giving conflicting advice. I think it's time this was cleared up. It's far too vague. So seems like people do need some proof of the reasons they can't wear a mask.

@Robbybobtail

I am so fucking sick of this

Little Stasi wannabes picking on women (it's always women) and people backing them up!!

She's right - she has NO obligation to share her information. I thought she behaved brilliantly. She was calm, she knew her rights, and the prick police officers refused to even look at the law she was presenting them (doesn't surprise me as they seem to like to make it up). I hope she does sue them.

The sad thing is there was probably a battered wife or a mugging victim who didn't get an audience with police after their attack because they're too busy implementing 1984 in Sainsbury's. Awful. I'm genuinely terrified with the way the world is going.

And shame on those of you who think this is OK.

Yes, this. Can’t believe what we’ve come to - and so quickly.

Could not have come soon enough

It is the act of discrimination itself that is unlawful.

Only if you're disabled and your disability meant you couldn't wear a mask. That's what you'd have to prove in court if you wanted to make a claim.

Could the supermarkets claim that there is no discrimination as they are not barring unmasked disabled people from shopping - they could use click and collect or the delivery services.

@user1497207191

It is the act of discrimination itself that is unlawful.

Only if you're disabled and your disability meant you couldn't wear a mask. That's what you'd have to prove in court if you wanted to make a claim.

There is no requirement to prove, in court or otherwise, that you are unable to wear a mask.

How many times does it need to be said?

@BowlerHatPowerHat

Could the supermarkets claim that there is no discrimination as they are not barring unmasked disabled people from shopping - they could use click and collect or the delivery services.

Probably - 'reasonable adjustment' argument.

@bobbojobbo

One argument was for the shop staff, but I think another one was that exposing people who can't wear a mask to other people who can't wear a mask was unfair and increased their risk

The second can't is actually won't, once you realise that you will get it

That's just it. The second "can't" is no different to the first. You're not allowed to ask why people aren't wearing one.

There is no requirement to prove, in court or otherwise, that you are unable to wear a mask.

There is if you want to sue whoever you feel has discriminated against you.

There is no requirement to prove, in court or otherwise, that you are unable to wear a mask.

If a supermarket refused entry to/removed a customer on the grounds that they were shouting and being abusive to staff and other customers, and the customer claimed that the supermarket was discriminating against them because not wearing a mask, then who would have to prove what exactly?

@user1497207191

There is no requirement to prove, in court or otherwise, that you are unable to wear a mask.

There is if you want to sue whoever you feel has discriminated against you.

Where does the legislation say that?

If a person has been prevented from going into a shop because they’re not wearing a mask, that is the prima facie unlawful discrimination.

There is still no need to prove that they are, in fact, unable to wear a mask.

Probably - 'reasonable adjustment' argument.

Exactly. The DDA isn't a free for all for disabled to have free reign to do whatever they want, never has been. It's long been acceptable (backed up by court decisions) that a business can make "reasonable adjustments" such as providing alternative ways to access their goods/services, i.e. online shopping, deliveries, etc.

I have an office based business. My office isn't disabled accessible as it's down a very steep drive, with a kind of narrow dog leg entrance way, so impossible for say, a wheel chair to access. My "reasonable adjustment" is providing online/email/phone services rather than a physical face to face meeting, or in the very rare situation where only face to face will do, I visit a client at their home.

The DDA doesn't require the disabled person to have exactly the same access/rights as everyone else. It allows for alternative ways of providing that service.

There is still no need to prove that they are, in fact, unable to wear a mask.

No court will award them damages/compensation if they're not actually disabled!!

@bendmeoverbackwards

Good, I hope more supermarkets follow suit. I’m sympathetic to those with genuine reasons but there are far more piss takers/anti mask brigade.

If you can’t wear a mask, avoid the shops. Ask someone to help you.

What I don’t understand is why anyone would feel comfortable shopping without a mask. They may have valid reasons for not wearing one but that doesn’t stop the virus being transmitted does it?

This. A million times this. If you are truly exempt but feel you need to leave the house, you can go for a walk in the park. You don't need to go to a location that's full of people. It's inconsiderate. And if you need to do your food shopping you can do click and collect. If you don't have money to pay for C&C you can ask a friend, a family member or a neighbour to pick it up for you. If you don't have anyone you can ask one of the many local volunteer groups.

Unfortunately because of all those idiots who don't wear a mask when they should, we can't afford not to challenge everyone who is not wearing one. This is one of the reasons why this lockdown isn't working as well as it could.

@Haffiana

There is no requirement to prove, in court or otherwise, that you are unable to wear a mask.

If a supermarket refused entry to/removed a customer on the grounds that they were shouting and being abusive to staff and other customers, and the customer claimed that the supermarket was discriminating against them because not wearing a mask, then who would have to prove what exactly?

Rewrite that, but substitute ‘black’ for ‘not wearing a mask’.

How does it sound then?

We have whole riots to protest discrimination against black people. It wouldn’t be considered unreasonable for a black person to take umbrage at being ejected from a shop on the grounds of their race. They would be expected to be shouting and agitated.

I actually bothered to watch the video, the woman was not 'screeching' as one poster said. She remained calm and factual, had information from the government's own website printed out to back herself up but the police wouldn't even read it. The lady was right and she was discriminated against.

@user1497207191

There is still no need to prove that they are, in fact, unable to wear a mask.

No court will award them damages/compensation if they're not actually disabled!!

Yes, they likely would, how many times do you need to have this explained to you?

There is no requirement to prove the inability to wear a mask.

Have you actually read the legislation?

@NikeDeLaSwoosh - Did you really just compare not wearing a mask to being black? 🤦🏼‍♀️

There is no requirement to prove, in court or otherwise, that you are unable to wear a mask.How many times does it need to be said?

You can say it a billion times, YOU ARE STILL WRONG.

Think of it this way, if I want to sue my employer for discriminating against me on the grounds of maternity, at some point I am going to have to show that I had a baby. I can't just say that I did and thats the end of that.
If you want to show that you have been discriminated against on the grounds of disablity, there has to be a disability, and you have to show it. You can't claim to be discriminated against without showing there is a basis to claim discrimination.

This is very basic stuff, if you don't understand it, stop talking.

If a person has been prevented from going into a shop because they’re not wearing a mask, that is the prima facie unlawful discrimination.

If they were prevented because not wearing 'proper' clothes, eg pyjamas, would that be discrimination?

@NikeDeLaSwoosh

Please provide a link to a successful disability discrimination case where the person wasn't actually disabled.

[quote MilkTwoSugarsThanks]@NikeDeLaSwoosh - Did you really just compare not wearing a mask to being black? 🤦🏼‍♀️[/quote]
In the eyes of the law, disability and race enjoy the same protected status.

f a person has been prevented from going into a shop because they’re not wearing a mask, that is the prima facie unlawful discrimination

No it isn't. Sub in pants for mask to show how wrong you are.

@user1497207191 the DDA was subsumed into the Equality Act (which interestingly is less specific in many ways) some years ago, and you will be jumped on for that no doubt, but I take your point.

Most businesses and organisations aren't 'Equality Act compliant' tbh with regard to the protected characteristics, but it's very hard to prove.

@user1497207191

Probably - 'reasonable adjustment' argument.

Exactly. The DDA isn't a free for all for disabled to have free reign to do whatever they want, never has been. It's long been acceptable (backed up by court decisions) that a business can make "reasonable adjustments" such as providing alternative ways to access their goods/services, i.e. online shopping, deliveries, etc.

I have an office based business. My office isn't disabled accessible as it's down a very steep drive, with a kind of narrow dog leg entrance way, so impossible for say, a wheel chair to access. My "reasonable adjustment" is providing online/email/phone services rather than a physical face to face meeting, or in the very rare situation where only face to face will do, I visit a client at their home.

The DDA doesn't require the disabled person to have exactly the same access/rights as everyone else. It allows for alternative ways of providing that service.

Here's what the EA (not the DDA, it's been the EA since 2010) statutory code says about reasonable adjustments:

7.4 - The policy of the Act is not a minimalist policy of simply ensuring that some access is available to disabled people; it is, so far as is reasonably practicable, to approximate the access enjoyed by disabled people to that enjoyed by the rest of the public. The purpose of the duty to make reasonable adjustments is to provide access to a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard normally offered to the public at large (and their equivalents in relation to associations or the exercise of public functions).

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/services-public-functions-and-associations-statutory-code-practice

So the supermarket would have to show why it was not reasonably practicable to use the RA that has already been set out by the government and written into legislation - i.e. to respect the mask exemptions and allow those who are unable to wear a face covering the same access to the service as everyone else.

Statutory code is not quite law and it's possible to challenge it but this particular part of the code is well backed up by case law so I wouldn't fancy their chances.

We have whole riots to protest discrimination against black people. It wouldn’t be considered unreasonable for a black person to take umbrage at being ejected from a shop on the grounds of their race. They would be expected to be shouting and agitated.

How would it be demonstrated that they were ejected on the grounds of their race?

I watched the video and this poor woman was definitely discriminated against. She wasn’t screeching. She was flustered and understandably upset but didn’t shout or get rude.
The police asked her why she wasn’t wearing a mask, she said she was exempt. They then asked her for proof of her exemption, say an exemption card, she responded correctly that according to the law one is not required. They then asked what her disability was, and she said that they were not doctors and per the law cannot ask her what her disability is. She then showed them the printout from the government website backing up what she was saying, and the police refused to look at it. They then said that the Sainsbury’s manager was refusing to provide her service and she had to leave. She then said that Sainsbury’s would be liable for £9,000 fine for discrimination against a mask exempt person. She said a few times that this is all on the government website and that the police should know this because it’s the law. The police said it’s not the law (wrong). Then she said she’d be taking this to court. The police then said see you in court sarcastically.