Client Services Director loses constructive dismissal claim after resigning over sick pay and alleged sex discrimination
A Client Services Director who resigned over unpaid sick pay and a claimed promotion of a male colleague has lost her constructive dismissal and sex discrimination claims. The tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant resigned on 4 February 2022 citing failure to pay sick pay and alleged promotion of a male colleague.
- The respondent failed to pay contractual sick pay for January 2022 but corrected it when queried.
- The claimant accessed a colleague's email account without authorisation in January 2022.
- The claimant was not dismissed; the tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract by the respondent.
- The respondent conceded two days' holiday pay (£269.23) but the claimant failed to prove an agreement for four additional days.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as Client Services Director.
-
TUPE transfer
A company owned by Mr Thomson acquired the respondent's assets, transferring the claimant's employment.
-
Alleged derogatory remarks
Claimant alleged Mr Thomson made derogatory comments about female staff; tribunal found this did not happen.
-
Alleged shouting incident
Claimant alleged Mr Thomson shouted at her; tribunal found this did not happen.
-
Annual leave for daughter's wedding
Claimant took 11 days' leave for her daughter's wedding and a holiday.
-
Operational meeting
Mr Thomson directed questions to Mr Bridge; tribunal found this reasonable given claimant's recent return from leave.
-
Recruitment update
Mr Thomson informed claimant of recruitment progress; claimant had unauthorised access to Mr Bridge's emails.
-
Claimant went off sick
Claimant left work due to back pain and commenced sick leave.
-
Sick pay underpayment
Claimant received only statutory sick pay; company sick pay was later paid after query.
-
Resignation
Claimant resigned, citing sick pay failure and alleged promotion of Mr Bridge.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's conduct amounted to a fundamental breach of contract entitling the employee to resign and claim constructive dismissal, and whether the employer discriminated against her on grounds of sex.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims except for a small holiday pay award.
- The claimant resigned on 4 February 2022, alleging failure to pay sick pay and that a male colleague was promoted instead of her.
- The tribunal found no fundamental breach: the sick pay error was corrected when queried, and the alleged derogatory remarks and shouting incidents did not happen.
- The claimant had accessed a colleague's email without authorisation, which undermined her position.
- The respondent conceded two days' holiday pay (£269.23), but the claim for four additional days failed due to lack of evidence.
Lessons & takeaways
- Constructive dismissal requires a fundamental breach of contract by the employer – a minor error that is quickly corrected is unlikely to suffice.
- Unauthorised access to a colleague's email can seriously damage an employee's credibility in tribunal proceedings.
- Allegations of discrimination must be supported by evidence; tribunals will scrutinise whether the alleged events actually occurred.
- Resigning without first raising a formal grievance can weaken a constructive dismissal claim.
- Keep clear records of holiday agreements and pay entitlements to avoid disputes over small amounts.
This case illustrates the high bar for constructive dismissal claims. The employee, a Client Services Director with over two years' service, resigned after a dispute over sick pay and what she saw as preferential treatment of a male colleague. But the tribunal found that the employer had not acted in a way that destroyed trust and confidence.
What went wrong for the claimant
The key issue was that the alleged acts of discrimination – derogatory remarks and shouting – were found not to have happened. The tribunal preferred the evidence of the employer's witnesses. The sick pay underpayment, while a mistake, was corrected as soon as it was raised. That did not amount to a fundamental breach. Crucially, the claimant had also accessed a colleague's email account without permission, which the tribunal noted as a breach of her own obligations.
Why the result matters
This case is a reminder that constructive dismissal claims are not straightforward. An employee who resigns must show that the employer's conduct was so serious that it went to the root of the contract. A single administrative error, even if inconvenient, will not usually justify resignation. The claim for sex discrimination also failed because the tribunal did not accept the claimant's version of events.
The only award was for two days' unpaid holiday pay (£269.23), which the employer conceded. The claimant's attempt to claim four additional days failed because she could not prove an agreement for extra leave. This shows the importance of keeping written records of holiday arrangements.
Similar cases
Remote worker's constructive dismissal claim fails over grievance handling
A Sales Administrator with 11 years' service resigned after a workplace argument and poor communication, but the tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract or discrimination.
Transport director's constructive dismissal claim fails after sick pay dispute
A transport director with 20 years' service lost her constructive unfair dismissal claim after resigning over a sick pay dispute and an investigatory meeting. The tribunal found no repudiatory breach of contract.
25 years of service ended by constructive dismissal after role change and furlough breach
An administrator with 25 years' service won £21,237 after being constructively dismissed when her employer changed her role, required her to work while on furlough, and sent work during sick leave.
Judgments set aside after tribunal failed to phone absent respondent
A tribunal has set aside its own earlier judgments after admitting it should have telephoned the respondent before proceeding in their absence. The case will now be reheard.