Customer advisor with depression dismissed for misconduct: tribunal upholds B&Q's decision
A customer advisor with depression was dismissed for gross misconduct after a series of incidents with colleagues. The tribunal ruled the dismissal was fair and not discriminatory.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- Matthew Elder worked for B&Q as a customer advisor from April 2017 until his dismissal on 15 February 2022.
- He had depression and anxiety, which the respondent accepted as a disability.
- He developed a close friendship with a colleague D, which ended, leading to repeated unwanted contact.
- He made comments to another colleague E that were interpreted as threatening.
- He was dismissed without notice for gross misconduct after repeated informal actions and warnings.
- He died on 22 March 2022, and his mother brought the claim as administrator of his estate.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Matthew Elder began working for B&Q as a customer advisor.
-
Mental health absences began
He started having significant periods of absence due to depression and anxiety.
-
First informal action
After an incident where he badmouthed D in front of customers, he received an informal action form.
-
Second informal action
He breached confidentiality from mediation and continued contacting D, receiving a second informal action.
-
Incident with D and E
He banged on a locked door where D was, and later made comments to E that were seen as threatening.
-
Suspension and dismissal
He was suspended and then dismissed without notice for gross misconduct.
-
Death of claimant
Matthew Elder died.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal was unfair and whether the suspension and dismissal amounted to discrimination arising from disability, given the employee's depression and anxiety were accepted as a disability.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims, ruling that B&Q acted reasonably throughout.
- The dismissal was fair because the employer had a genuine belief in gross misconduct based on a reasonable investigation.
- The suspension and dismissal were not discrimination arising from disability because the conduct was not a consequence of the disability, and even if it were, the actions were a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
- No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can dismiss for gross misconduct even when the employee has a disability, provided the conduct is not a consequence of the disability and the process is fair.
- A fair investigation and a genuine belief in misconduct are key to defending an unfair dismissal claim.
- Supportive management and reasonable adjustments do not prevent dismissal if the employee's behaviour crosses into gross misconduct.
A tragic case with a clear outcome
This case involves a customer advisor who had worked for B&Q for five years and suffered from depression and anxiety, which the company accepted as a disability. After a series of incidents involving colleagues, including unwanted contact and comments perceived as threatening, he was dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal had to consider whether the dismissal was unfair and whether it amounted to discrimination arising from disability.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal found that B&Q acted reasonably. The employer had carried out a proper investigation, and the decision-maker genuinely believed the employee had committed gross misconduct. The tribunal also found that the suspension and dismissal were not acts of discrimination. The conduct was not a consequence of the employee's disability, and even if it were, B&Q's actions were a proportionate way to protect other staff and maintain a safe workplace.
What this means for similar claims
This case shows that employers can dismiss employees with disabilities for misconduct if the behaviour is not linked to the disability and the process is fair. It also highlights that supportive management and reasonable adjustments do not give an employee a free pass for serious misconduct. For employees, it is a reminder that mental health struggles may be a mitigating factor but do not necessarily protect against dismissal for gross misconduct.
Similar cases
Dismissed without a meeting or appeal: a conduct case with big reductions
A former employee of Fairview Grocers Limited was unfairly dismissed without any meeting or right of appeal, but his own conduct led to a 60% cut in compensation. He was awarded £3,752.89 in total.
Claim struck out after failure to comply with tribunal orders due to ill-health
A former employee's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims against Marks and Spencer were struck out after she failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not actively pursue her claim.
Claims struck out after former employee fails to attend hearing or comply with orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims have been struck out after he failed to attend a preliminary hearing and did not comply with tribunal orders to provide evidence.
Former employee unfairly dismissed but gets only basic award after 70% contributory conduct deduction
A Watford tribunal found Mitie Ltd unfairly dismissed a former employee but reduced his basic award by 70% for his own conduct and made no compensatory award due to a 100% Polkey reduction. He received £1,298.10.