Cleaner with diabetes dismissed for poor performance and attendance: claims fail
A cleaner with two years' service who was dismissed for poor performance and attendance lost her claims of unfair dismissal, whistleblowing, disability and sex discrimination. The tribunal found the employer acted reasonably.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a cleaner from 25 November 2019 until 9 July 2021.
- The claimant had diabetes, which was disclosed to the respondent on 3 June 2021.
- The claimant's performance and attendance were below the required standard after returning from furlough in February 2021.
- The claimant did not make any protected disclosures as defined by s.43B ERA 1996.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant due to poor performance and attendance, not because of any protected disclosure or disability.
- The claimant's claims of sex discrimination and harassment were not supported by evidence.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a cleaner for the respondent.
-
First furlough period started
Claimant was placed on furlough due to COVID-19.
-
Returned from first furlough
Claimant returned to work after first furlough period.
-
Second furlough period started
Claimant was furloughed again.
-
Returned from second furlough
Claimant returned to work after second furlough.
-
Performance issues noted
Supervisor Tony Cosh began informal discussions about cleaning standards and husband's assistance.
-
Performance meeting
Meeting with Chris Huxton and Andrea Browning; claimant disclosed diabetes diagnosis.
-
Dismissal meeting
Claimant's employment was terminated due to poor performance and attendance.
-
Last day of employment
Claimant's employment ended.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant made protected disclosures, was automatically unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing or health and safety reasons, suffered detriment, or was discriminated against due to disability or sex.
The outcome
The tribunal unanimously dismissed all claims brought by the claimant.
Key reasons:
- The claimant did not make any protected disclosures as defined by law.
- The dismissal was for poor performance and attendance, not for whistleblowing or health and safety reasons.
- There was no evidence of sex discrimination or harassment.
- The employer did not have knowledge of the claimant's disability at the relevant time, and the dismissal was proportionate.
No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- To bring a whistleblowing claim, you must show you made a qualifying disclosure in the public interest — general complaints about performance do not count.
- Disability discrimination claims require the employer to have actual or constructive knowledge of the disability at the time of the alleged discriminatory act.
- Poor performance and attendance, even when linked to a disability, can justify dismissal if the employer acts reasonably and proportionately.
- Representing yourself at tribunal is possible, but legal representation can help navigate complex issues and evidence.
What this case shows in practice
A cleaner with two years' service was dismissed after returning from furlough due to ongoing performance and attendance issues. She had disclosed her diabetes shortly before dismissal, but the tribunal found that the employer did not know of her disability at the time of the key decisions. The claimant brought multiple claims including unfair dismissal, whistleblowing, disability discrimination, and sex discrimination, but all were dismissed.
What the employer did right
The employer had documented performance concerns, held meetings, and gave warnings before dismissing. The tribunal accepted that the dismissal was for poor performance and attendance, not because of any protected disclosure or disability. The employer also had a legitimate aim of maintaining cleaning standards for its customers.
Why the result matters
This case highlights that employees with short service (under two years) have limited unfair dismissal rights, and that even with a disability, employers can dismiss for conduct or capability if they follow a fair process. It also shows that whistleblowing claims require specific disclosures of information in the public interest, not just workplace complaints.
Similar cases
Governance Manager's discrimination and unfair dismissal claims rejected
A Governance Manager who brought multiple claims of discrimination, victimisation and unfair dismissal after being made redundant has lost her case. The tribunal ordered her to pay £20,000 in costs.
Threatening emails and abuse of witnesses: claim struck out as vexatious
A former employee who sent threatening emails to colleagues and called a witness a liar outside the tribunal room had his unfair dismissal claim struck out. The tribunal said a fair trial was no longer possible.
Strike-out of disability discrimination claim against CEO: no specific allegations
A former employee's disability discrimination claim against the CEO of CSH Surrey was struck out after she failed to particularise any specific allegations against him. The tribunal found the claim had no reasonable prospects of success.
Former employee's claim dismissed as out of time nearly six years after leaving
A former employee's unfair dismissal, sex discrimination and whistleblowing claims were thrown out after he presented them almost six years after his employment ended. The tribunal also ordered him to pay £400 in costs.