'Some stores are discriminating against people like me who can't wear masks for medical reasons' - one woman's personal experience of shopping in Leamington and Kenilworth

Viewpoint by Margaret Middleton

‘Supermarkets at risk of discrimination': This stark – and very timely – reminder in a recent article of ‘The Grocer’ (January, 2021) also echoes recent concerns expressed by the Equality and Human Rights Commissioner in a letter to the CEOs of major supermarkets, warning that the application of more stringent measures adopted to prevent the spread of Covid-19 risk discriminating against those who have medically sound reasons for not being able to wear masks.

Alastair Pringle, the commission’s executive director, responding to a flood of complaints from many who have been affected, wrote: “I write to remind all stores that you are subject to Equality Act legislation. Policies which require mandatory mask-wearing and/or the production of proof to justify an exemption put retailers at risk of discriminating against disabled people.”

Such is the prevalence of this disregard of the law and government guidelines (which have been clear all along) that one disability rights organisation has drawn up a template which can be used by those who have experienced discrimination arising from a company’s reaction to a person being denied access to a store. I have just been on the receiving end of this and it is not a pleasant experience!

For the sake of clarity, the government guidelines (December 2020) state: ‘There are some circumstances where people may not be able to wear a face covering. Please be mindful and respectful of such circumstances ...If you have an age, health or disability

reason for not wearing a face covering, you do not need to show any evidence of this, and you do no need to show an exemption card.’

Like so many others, I am just about able to accept the fact that, owing to age and certain medical conditions, I am now labelled ‘vulnerable’. On the positive side, it has allowed me to select an on-line shopping slot with ease and to be prioritised for vaccination (some small compensation in these times of heightened restrictions).

On the negative side, it has now on two occasions placed me in the ‘firing line’ outside a supermarket, questioned publically as to why I was wearing a visor, not a mask. The first experience was at a Kenilworth supermarket some weeks ago: at least here I was given the opportunity to explain the medical reasons and point out the current Government Guidelines, which were accepted and I was then allowed entry. It was interesting to observe that, though the shop was overcrowded and there was a total disregard of social-distancing signage and the request to ‘shop singly’ (despite both being exhorted over the tannoy and on posters), it was the lone, visored shopper who was singled out.

I fared much worse on the second occasion last Friday at a Leamington foodstore. Again I was forbidden entry, which I queried, explaining medical exemptions and guidelines, but all to no avail. I then had recited to me from a mobile phone some highly selective (ie irrelevant) guidelines about the need for masks to be worn under visors, and again I referred to the unambiguous guidelines re. exemptions. To be allowed in, I was then told, wearing a lanyard was necessary: at point, incomprehension set in ! Was this a new mandatory acquisition that had escaped my attention? Where could I find references to this – nothing on the shop door, nothing in the press or on the news; where could I obtain such a item (an interesting answer: “From the NHS!”). It is an unnecessary demand – firstly flying in the face of both government guidelines and the law, and secondly, as absolutely anyone can purchase such an item on-line, it proves absolutely nothing about the veracity of the person’s claim for exemption. Though they are deemed ‘unnecessary’ according to the government, I have now invested in the said object for all to see and await the outcome of my next visit! On this occasion, I was unceremoniously turned away, feeling more than a little aggrieved at the handling of the issue and the overt discrimination to which I (and many others) are now being subject. For the moment, I await responses from the stores concerned.

So, to all store managers and to all who serve the public, please acquaint your staff with ALL the guidelines, don’t subject us to the ‘third degree’, and start from the presumption that there is likely to be a very sound reason as to why (other than wearing no shield at all, which would be too much of a risk) a visor is our only option. Query it politely if you must and then allow us to carry on with our business, but please do not treat us as if we were blatantly flouting the rules and discriminate against us. We are all too well aware of the risks of this pandemic, which is why emergency shopping trips happen first thing in the morning or last thing at night to avoid contact with crowds, why we adhere to advice on shielding and ‘bubbles’ and why we are concerned not only for our own safety, but also the safety of others.

I am urging government ministers to provide additional protection to visor-wearers by amending the current guideline that states that proof of exemption is not needed: firstly by making the wearing of exemption card lanyards mandatory, but, as these are now so readily available to all, to carry some bona fide proof of the medical condition which makes mask-wearing difficult - this could take the form of a card from a GP, or a relevant prescription if that was feasible. These changes would help to 'take the heat out of the situation' , make for a more believable system and reduce apprehension and the possibility of confrontation on both sides.

What do you think? Email us at [email protected]