Head of PE dismissed for allowing pupil to use another child's inhaler: dismissal fair
A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a Head of PE who authorised the use of another pupil's inhaler for a child with severe allergies during an off-site lesson. All disability discrimination claims also failed.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #off-site-lesson
- #medical-bag
- #inhaler-use
- #disability-discrimination
- #reasonable-adjustments
- #gross-misconduct
Key facts
- The claimant was Head of PE and responsible for an off-site games lesson on 28 February 2022.
- A pupil with severe allergies and asthma did not have his medical bag with him during the lesson.
- The claimant authorised the use of another pupil's inhaler for the child without parental or medical guidance.
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after a disciplinary hearing.
- The claimant had generalised anxiety disorder, which was conceded as a disability by the respondent.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was for conduct and was fair, and all discrimination claims failed.
Timeline
-
First occupational health referral
The claimant was referred to occupational health after a period of absence due to anxiety.
-
Second occupational health referral
The claimant was referred again due to work-related stress; no adjustments were recommended.
-
Incident at off-site games lesson
The claimant was in charge of an off-site PE lesson. A pupil with severe allergies did not have his medical bag. The claimant authorised use of another pupil's inhaler.
-
Investigation meeting with claimant
Mr Norton held an investigation meeting with the claimant regarding the incident.
-
Disciplinary hearing invitation
The claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing on 11 March 2022 for three allegations.
-
First disciplinary hearing
The disciplinary hearing commenced; it was adjourned to allow further witness statements.
-
Disciplinary hearing reconvened and dismissal
The hearing reconvened; Mrs Norton dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal submitted
The claimant submitted an appeal against dismissal.
-
Appeal hearing
Mr Gatenby chaired the appeal hearing; further investigations were undertaken.
-
Appeal outcome
Mr Gatenby upheld the dismissal decision.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for conduct, wrongfully dismissed, or discriminated against because of her disability (generalised anxiety disorder) in relation to her dismissal and the disciplinary process.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the dismissal for gross misconduct was fair because the school reasonably believed the claimant had committed a serious breach of duty by authorising the use of another pupil's inhaler without medical guidance. The investigation and disciplinary process were thorough and reasonable.
- Unfair dismissal claim: failed because the decision fell within the band of reasonable responses.
- Wrongful dismissal claim: failed because the conduct amounted to gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal.
- Disability discrimination claims (direct, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment): all failed because the tribunal found no evidence that the claimant's disability influenced the school's actions or that any provision, criterion or practice placed her at a substantial disadvantage.
Lessons & takeaways
- Schools must follow clear protocols for administering medication; deviating from them can justify dismissal.
- Disability discrimination claims require a causal link between the disability and the treatment; a fair process that disregards disability is not discriminatory.
- Employers should ensure disciplinary processes are thorough and reasonable, as tribunals will defer to their judgment if they are.
- Employees with disabilities should request reasonable adjustments in advance; retrospective claims are harder to prove.
This case shows how a single, well-intentioned decision can have serious consequences. The Head of PE, with seven years' service, was responsible for an off-site games lesson. When a pupil with severe allergies and asthma was found without his medical bag, she authorised the use of another child's inhaler. The school viewed this as a gross breach of safeguarding protocols and dismissed her.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal accepted that the school genuinely believed the claimant had committed gross misconduct. The investigation was thorough, the disciplinary hearing was properly conducted, and the appeal process was fair. Although the claimant had generalised anxiety disorder (conceded as a disability), the tribunal found no evidence that this affected the school's decisions. The dismissal was for conduct, not because of her disability.
What the school did right
The school followed a clear disciplinary procedure, adjourned to gather further evidence, and allowed the claimant to be accompanied. The appeal was heard by a different manager who conducted additional investigations before upholding the dismissal. This process helped persuade the tribunal that the decision was reasonable, even if others might have reached a different conclusion.
Why this matters
For employees, this case is a reminder that even long-serving staff can be fairly dismissed for serious errors of judgment. For employers, it demonstrates that a robust, fair process can successfully defend against both unfair dismissal and discrimination claims. The key is to focus on the conduct, not the person's disability, and to ensure the disciplinary process is thorough and consistent.
Similar cases
Support worker dismissed for swearing at service user: disability discrimination claim fails
A support worker with 2.5 months' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after swearing at a person they supported. The tribunal rejected claims of disability discrimination because the employer did not know of his undiagnosed ADHD.
Autistic customer assistant unfairly dismissed for leaning on colleague
A customer assistant with autism was unfairly dismissed by Marks and Spencer after leaning on a colleague, as the tribunal found the employer failed to consider his condition or obtain updated medical reports.
Two teaching assistants dismissed after cocaine incident at school: one unfair but no compensation, other wins disability claim
A teaching assistant was unfairly dismissed over a cocaine incident at a special needs school, but received no compensation because she would have been sacked anyway. A second assistant won a disability discrimination claim after her mother was refused as a companion at her disciplinary hearing.
Clinically extremely vulnerable manager dismissed for refusing to return to unsafe office: unfair dismissal and disability discrimination
A branch manager with 12 years' service who was clinically extremely vulnerable to COVID-19 was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against after his employer demanded he return to an office he considered unsafe. The tribunal found the disciplinary process was a sham.