Healthcare assistant withdraws unfair dismissal claim over vaccine mandate
A healthcare assistant withdrew her unfair dismissal claim at a tribunal hearing. The tribunal allowed her to change her discrimination claim from race to religion or belief, but refused to add a disability claim.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant withdrew her unfair dismissal claim at the hearing.
- The claimant applied to amend her race discrimination claim to religion or belief discrimination.
- The claimant is a Roman Catholic and a Lithuanian national.
- The claimant was told she would be dismissed if she could not provide evidence of vaccination.
- The claimant's application to add a disability discrimination claim was refused.
Timeline
-
Preliminary hearing
At a preliminary hearing, the claimant's representative raised an intention to amend the claim to include disability discrimination. An order was made for the application to be filed by 27 June 2022.
-
Application to amend filed
The claimant's union filed an application to amend the claim to include disability discrimination, and the respondent objected by 11 July 2022.
-
Final hearing
The hearing took place via CVP at Bury St Edmunds. The claimant withdrew her unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal granted the amendment from race to religion or belief discrimination but refused the amendment to add disability discrimination.
-
Judgment sent
The judgment was issued and sent to the parties.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to allow the claimant to amend her claim from race discrimination to religion or belief discrimination, and whether to allow an amendment to add a claim of disability discrimination.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim after she withdrew it at the start of the hearing.
The tribunal granted the claimant's application to amend her claim from race discrimination to religion or belief discrimination, noting that the claim was essentially about her Catholic faith and the vaccine mandate, and that the respondent would not suffer serious hardship.
However, the tribunal refused the claimant's application to add a disability discrimination claim, because the application lacked detail and was made late, with no evidence of disability or reasonable adjustments.
No compensation was awarded as the unfair dismissal claim was withdrawn and the discrimination claims remain to be heard.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you want to change the type of discrimination claim you are making, do so as early as possible and provide clear reasons.
- When applying to add a new claim, provide full details and evidence to support it, especially if the deadline has passed.
- Withdrawing a claim at the last minute may leave you without a remedy for that issue, so consider the consequences carefully.
- If you are a litigant in person, seek advice early to ensure your claim is correctly framed from the start.
A case of last-minute changes
This case shows what can happen when a claimant changes their legal arguments at the very last moment. The healthcare assistant, who worked for Orwell Housing Association, had originally brought claims of unfair dismissal and race discrimination after being told she would be dismissed if she could not provide evidence of vaccination. However, on the day of the final hearing, her union representative realised that the real issue was about the claimant's Roman Catholic beliefs, not her race.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal allowed the amendment from race to religion or belief discrimination, describing it as simply 'relabelling' the same set of facts. The respondent had not yet started disclosure and would not suffer serious hardship. However, the tribunal refused a separate application to add a disability discrimination claim. That application had been made months earlier but contained no detail about what the alleged disability was or what reasonable adjustments should have been made. The tribunal noted that the claimant had not mentioned disability in her original claim form, and the late application would cause unfairness to the respondent.
What this means for similar claims
This case is a reminder that tribunals will look at the balance of prejudice when deciding whether to allow amendments. A simple change of label may be allowed even at the last minute, especially if the underlying facts are the same. But adding a completely new type of claim, without proper detail, is much harder to justify. Claimants should ensure their claims are properly particularised from the outset, and if they need to amend, they should do so promptly with full supporting evidence.
Similar cases
Former employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of two years' service
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Kings College London was struck out because they did not have the required two years' service. Their discrimination claims were dismissed after a hearing.
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.
Taxi driver's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims dismissed as out of time
A taxi driver who waited over six months to bring his claim after Uber deactivated his account has had his case thrown out by the Nottingham tribunal for being well outside the three-month time limit.
Discrimination claims struck out after failure to provide clear particulars
A former employee's race and religion discrimination claims were struck out after she failed to provide a properly constructed amendment despite a tribunal order. Her solicitor's last-minute postponement request was refused.