Non-registered vaccinator sent home over medication concerns: disability discrimination claims dismissed
A tribunal dismissed claims of disability discrimination and harassment by a vaccinator with borderline personality disorder who was sent home from work due to concerns about her emotional stability and medication status.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #disability-discrimination
- #borderline-personality-disorder
- #vaccinator
- #unfavourable-treatment
- #proportionate-means
- #legitimate-aim
- #harassment
Key facts
- The claimant worked as a non-registered vaccinator supplied by Bank Partners to UCLH.
- The claimant has borderline personality disorder, accepted as a disability.
- On 12 August 2022, the first respondent sent the claimant home from work due to concerns about her emotional stability and medication status.
- The claimant was arrested on 8 August 2022 after an incident with her partner and was released on bail.
- The tribunal found that the respondents' actions were proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims, including safety and wellbeing.
- All claims of discrimination arising from disability and harassment were dismissed.
Timeline
-
Claimant started work as vaccinator
Claimant began her first shift with UCLH vaccination service as a Band 4 vaccinator.
-
Diagnosed with borderline personality disorder
Claimant was formally diagnosed with borderline personality disorder by a private psychiatrist.
-
Incident at vaccination centre
Claimant shouted at a colleague on the shop floor; known as the 'Stapler incident'.
-
Claimant volunteered in India
Claimant went to volunteer in India on a medical programme for five weeks.
-
Returned from India
Claimant returned to the UK; her partner had blocked her and changed his number.
-
Claimant arrested
Claimant attended her partner's flat, police called, she was arrested for violent entry, harassment, and malicious communication.
-
Released on bail
Claimant released on bail with conditions; phone confiscated. Three-way call with first and third respondents.
-
GP appointment and emails
Claimant saw GP; third respondent sent emails stating claimant not ready to return to work.
-
Sent home from work
Claimant attended shift but was sent home by first respondent, upheld by second respondent.
-
Informal complaint
Claimant filed informal complaint; fourth respondent discussed mediation.
-
Resignation
Claimant withdrew informal complaint, escalated to formal, and resigned.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the respondents discriminated against the claimant because of something arising in consequence of her disability (borderline personality disorder) and whether they harassed her related to that disability.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims of discrimination arising from disability and harassment.
The key reason was that the respondents' actions were proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims, including safety and wellbeing. The tribunal accepted that the respondents genuinely believed the claimant was not ready to return to work due to her emotional state and lack of medication, and that their actions were not unfavourable treatment but reasonable steps to protect everyone involved.
No compensation was awarded as all claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can justify actions that arise from a disability if they are a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, such as safety or wellbeing.
- A tribunal will consider the employer's genuine belief about risk, not just the employee's perspective, when assessing proportionality.
- Disclosure of confidential information about an employee's health may still be justified if it is necessary to protect the employee or others.
When safety concerns override disability protections
This case shows the fine line employers must walk when an employee's disability leads to behaviour that raises safety concerns. The claimant, a non-registered vaccinator with borderline personality disorder, was sent home after colleagues learned of her arrest and bail conditions, and observed her emotional instability. The tribunal accepted that the decision was not about her disability per se, but about the risk she posed to herself, patients, and colleagues.
What the employer did right
The respondents had a clear chain of concern: the team lead, clinical lead, and workforce manager all acted on information about the claimant's recent arrest, her off-medication status, and her behaviour at work. They did not simply dismiss her; they offered mediation and considered occupational health referrals. The tribunal found that their actions were proportionate because they were focused on a legitimate aim – safety – and were not based on stereotypes or prejudice.
What the claimant argued
The claimant felt that she was being punished for her disability and that confidential information about her mental health was shared without consent. However, the tribunal noted that the respondents had a duty to share information to protect others, and that their emails, while direct, were not harassing in context.
Why this matters
For employees, this case is a reminder that disability discrimination claims will fail if the employer can show that its actions were a proportionate response to a real risk. For employers, it underscores the importance of documenting genuine concerns and acting consistently with safety policies, even when the employee's disability is a factor in the situation.
Similar cases
Bus driver with Crohn's disease awarded £25,000 after employer failed to provide suitable shifts
A bus driver with over 30 years' service was awarded £25,000 after his employer repeatedly allocated shifts that did not meet his disability-related needs, causing him to soil himself at work.
Administrative Officer's constructive dismissal claim over trigger words and phone policy rejected
An Administrative Officer who resigned after just seven weeks with the Ministry of Justice lost her claims of constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The tribunal found her employer had acted reasonably throughout.
Disabled employee required to prove medical appointments: victimisation and unfavourable treatment succeed
A former employee with a disability was awarded £3,892 after his employer demanded daily site diaries to verify attendance at medical appointments. The tribunal found this amounted to victimisation and unfavourable treatment arising from disability.
Unfair dismissal claim struck out: the two-year service rule in action
A former employee of the University of Bradford had his unfair dismissal claim struck out because he had less than two years' service. His harassment and disability discrimination claims were also struck out for procedural failures.