Coughing at a colleague during COVID: gross misconduct dismissal upheld
A Personal Relationship Manager with nine years' service was fairly dismissed for deliberately coughing towards a colleague during the pandemic, breaching lone-working rules and lying to his manager. The tribunal rejected all claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #covid-19
- #coughing-incident
- #lone-working
- #lying-to-manager
- #barbecue-photos
- #wishing-harm
Key facts
- The claimant deliberately coughed towards a colleague during the COVID-19 pandemic.
- The claimant worked overtime alone in breach of a clear instruction not to lone-work.
- The claimant lied to his manager about where he had worked the overtime.
- The claimant shared barbecue photos and made comments suggesting he broke lockdown rules.
- The claimant said he hoped a colleague would catch COVID and die.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct after a full investigation and disciplinary process.
Timeline
-
Lone working email sent
Joanne Cassidy emailed all PRMs in Manchester instructing them not to work overtime alone in Spring Gardens.
-
WhatsApp messages with Karen Delaney
Claimant sent messages expressing hope he would die from COVID and that God would punish colleagues.
-
Comment about wishing COVID death
Claimant allegedly told Karen Delaney he hoped someone in the team would get COVID and die; overheard by Sean Brennan.
-
First lone working overtime
Claimant worked overtime alone at Spring Gardens, breaching the instruction.
-
Coughing incident and barbecue
Claimant deliberately coughed towards Kim Whitworth. Later had a barbecue and shared photos on WhatsApp.
-
Second lone working overtime
Claimant again worked overtime alone at Spring Gardens.
-
Lying to manager
Joanne Cassidy asked where he worked overtime; claimant falsely said 'Speke' (Liverpool).
-
Disciplinary hearing invitation
Nicola Webster sent claimant letter detailing four allegations and enclosing evidence.
-
Dismissal decision
Nicola Webster decided to summarily dismiss claimant for gross misconduct.
-
Dismissal effective
Claimant's employment ended.
-
Appeal hearing
Nicola Quin heard claimant's appeal; claimant attended unaccompanied.
-
Appeal outcome
Nicola Quin upheld dismissal and dismissed grievance.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for misconduct, and whether the respondent directly discriminated against him, discriminated because of something arising from disability, or harassed him on grounds of disability.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that Lloyds Bank genuinely believed the claimant had committed gross misconduct after a thorough investigation and disciplinary process. The key allegations—deliberately coughing at a colleague during COVID, working overtime alone in breach of instructions, lying about where he worked, sharing barbecue photos suggesting lockdown breaches, and saying he hoped a colleague would catch COVID and die—were all proven on the balance of probabilities. The bank's decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses, and the process was fair. The disability discrimination claims failed because the treatment was not because of his disability (depression) but because of his misconduct.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can fairly dismiss for gross misconduct even during a pandemic if they follow a fair process and have reasonable grounds for their belief.
- Lying to a manager about a clear instruction, especially when combined with other misconduct, can be treated as a serious breach of trust.
- Disability does not protect an employee from the consequences of misconduct that is unrelated to their disability.
- A full investigation and appeal process strengthens an employer's position at tribunal, even if the employee represents themselves.
A case of trust broken during a crisis
This case shows how a combination of serious misconduct during the COVID-19 pandemic led to the fair dismissal of a long-serving employee. The claimant, a Personal Relationship Manager with nine years' service, deliberately coughed towards a colleague at a time when coughing was a source of extreme fear. He also worked overtime alone in direct defiance of a clear instruction, lied to his manager about where he had worked, shared photos of a barbecue that suggested he was breaking lockdown rules, and told a colleague he hoped someone in the team would catch COVID and die.
Lloyds Bank investigated thoroughly, gave the claimant full details of the allegations, held a disciplinary hearing, and considered his explanations. The decision to dismiss for gross misconduct was upheld on appeal. The tribunal noted that the bank's process was fair and that the decision was within the range of reasonable responses—even though the claimant had a long service record and a disability (depression).
What the bank did right
The bank's investigation was prompt and evidence-based. It gathered witness statements, WhatsApp messages, and CCTV footage. The disciplinary letter clearly set out four allegations, and the claimant was given the opportunity to respond. The appeal was heard by a different manager, ensuring independence. The tribunal found that the bank genuinely believed the misconduct had occurred and that this belief was reasonable.
Crucially, the tribunal rejected the claimant's argument that his conduct was caused by his depression. The evidence showed that his actions—the coughing, the lying, the wish for a colleague's death—were not linked to his disability. They were deliberate choices. This meant that the disability discrimination claims could not succeed.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that even in stressful times like a pandemic, employees are expected to follow reasonable instructions and treat colleagues with respect. Employers who carry out a fair investigation and follow their disciplinary procedures are well placed to defend a dismissal. For employees, it shows that length of service and a disability do not give a free pass for serious misconduct—especially where the misconduct is unrelated to the disability and involves a breach of trust. The tribunal will not substitute its own view for that of the employer if the employer's decision was within the range of reasonable responses.
Similar cases
Social worker's race discrimination claim over 'aggressive' stereotype dismissed
A black social worker with 15 years' service lost her claims of race discrimination and constructive dismissal after an altercation with a white colleague. The tribunal found no evidence of stereotyping or unfair treatment.
Before and after school club leader loses Covid-19 safety dismissal claim
A before and after school club leader who refused to attend work during the pandemic claiming serious and imminent danger has lost her unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found her belief was not reasonable given the school's risk assessments.
Bus driver dismissed for refusing alcohol test after collision: dismissal fair
A bus driver with 6 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after refusing a breath alcohol test following an at-fault collision. The tribunal also dismissed his discrimination and victimisation claims.
Dismissed by text message during lockdown: a TUPE redundancy that went wrong
A graphic designer with 15 years' service was dismissed by text message during the first lockdown. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair but rejected age discrimination claims.