Swimming teachers dismissed after furlough dispute: a conduct dismissal that went wrong
A tribunal found that Achieve Lifestyle Ltd unfairly dismissed two swimming teachers after a dispute over furlough pay, and failed to make reasonable adjustments for one teacher with breast cancer.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- Mr and Mrs Martin were employed as swimming teachers from 4 March 2019.
- Mrs Martin was diagnosed with breast cancer in November 2020 and had surgery on 1 December 2020.
- The respondent applied a policy that only employees who worked sufficient hours in December 2020 would be furloughed during Lockdown 3.
- Mr Martin suggested a way for the respondent to pay furlough, which the respondent interpreted as a fraudulent suggestion.
- The respondent dismissed the claimants on 25 February 2021 without any disciplinary process.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair and that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments for Mrs Martin.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Mr and Mrs Martin began working for Achieve Lifestyle as swimming teachers.
-
Mrs Martin diagnosed with breast cancer
Mrs Martin was diagnosed with breast cancer.
-
Mrs Martin's surgery
Mrs Martin underwent surgery for breast cancer.
-
Mr Martin self-isolates
Mr Martin was instructed to self-isolate due to possible COVID-19 contact.
-
Furlough criteria announced
Ms Aitken emailed staff that only those who worked regular hours in December 2020 would be furloughed.
-
Claimants disclose Mrs Martin's cancer
Mr Martin emailed Ms Aitken disclosing Mrs Martin's cancer and referencing the Equality Act.
-
Grievance rejected
The respondent rejected the claimants' grievance about furlough.
-
Mr Martin's final email
Mr Martin emailed asking for an impartial grievance meeting.
-
Dismissal
The respondent terminated the claimants' employment with immediate effect.
-
Preliminary hearing on status
Employment Judge Anstis held that the claimants were employees.
-
Liability judgment
The tribunal found unfair dismissal, indirect discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and breach of contract.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimants were unfairly dismissed for gross misconduct, whether the respondent indirectly discriminated against Mrs Martin by applying a furlough policy that disadvantaged her due to her disability, and whether the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the dismissals were unfair. The employer had no reasonable grounds to believe the claimants had committed gross misconduct and failed to carry out any investigation or disciplinary process. The tribunal also found that the respondent indirectly discriminated against Mrs Martin by applying a furlough policy that required regular hours worked in December 2020, which she could not meet due to her cancer treatment. The respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments by not considering her absence as disability-related. The claims for wrongful dismissal and breach of contract also succeeded. Compensation will be determined at a later hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must follow a fair disciplinary process before dismissing for gross misconduct, even if they believe the employee has done something wrong.
- Furlough policies that rely on recent attendance may indirectly discriminate against employees with disabilities who were absent for treatment.
- Employers should consider reasonable adjustments when applying attendance-related policies to disabled employees.
- Suggesting a way to access furlough pay is not automatically fraudulent; employers should investigate before jumping to conclusions.
A dispute over furlough leads to dismissal
Two swimming teachers, a married couple, were dismissed by Achieve Lifestyle Ltd after a disagreement about furlough pay during the COVID-19 pandemic. The employer accused them of suggesting a fraudulent way to claim furlough, but the tribunal found that the employer had no reasonable basis for that belief and had not carried out any investigation. The dismissals were therefore unfair.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have avoided the unfair dismissal findings by following a proper disciplinary process. Instead of jumping straight to dismissal, they should have investigated the allegation, given the employees a chance to respond, and considered whether a lesser sanction was appropriate. The tribunal noted that the employer's legal consultant advised on the dismissals, but the process was still flawed.
Indirect discrimination and reasonable adjustments
Mrs Martin had been diagnosed with breast cancer and had surgery in December 2020. The employer's furlough policy required employees to have worked regular hours in December to qualify. Because of her cancer treatment, Mrs Martin could not meet that requirement. The tribunal found that this put her at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled employees, and the employer failed to make reasonable adjustments. A simple adjustment would have been to disregard her absence due to cancer when applying the policy.
Why this case matters
This case shows that employers cannot rely on blanket policies without considering the impact on disabled employees. It also reinforces the importance of following a fair process before dismissing for misconduct, even in difficult circumstances like the pandemic. The tribunal will decide compensation at a later hearing.
Similar cases
Cleaner dismissed during Covid-19: employer's failure to respond leads to £2,719 payout
A part-time cleaner who was dismissed after asking to be furloughed has won her unfair dismissal claim after her employer failed to submit a response to the tribunal.
Furlough refusal during pandemic: HGV driver's constructive dismissal claim fails
An HGV driver with COPD who resigned after his employer refused to furlough him in November 2020 has lost his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims. The tribunal found the employer correctly interpreted the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme rules.
Store manager dismissed for COVID breaches: employer's response was reasonable
A tribunal has dismissed all claims of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal brought by a store manager with 7 years' service who was sacked for failing to enforce social distancing and misleading Test and Trace during the pandemic.
Covid concerns dismissal: employee lost automatic unfair dismissal claim but won notice pay
A plumbing engineer who was dismissed after raising concerns about his son's vulnerability to Covid-19 lost his automatic unfair dismissal claim but won £1,849 for breach of contract.