Mandatory Covid vaccination dismissal: tribunal finds claims have little prospect of success
A deputy manager who refused the Covid-19 vaccine on religious and philosophical grounds was fairly dismissed when his employer had a legal duty to require vaccination. The tribunal ordered him to pay a deposit to continue his claims.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Deputy Manager from April 2015 to 12 November 2021.
- The claimant refused to be vaccinated against Covid-19 due to his religious and philosophical beliefs.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant because the 2021 Regulations required care home workers to be vaccinated unless medically exempt.
- The claimant did not claim a medical exemption and did not apply for redeployment despite being given a list of vacancies.
- Another employee, Carla Felix, who self-certified a medical exemption, was not dismissed.
- The tribunal found the claims had little reasonable prospect of success and made a deposit order.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as Deputy Manager at a care home in Bournemouth.
-
Regulations announced
The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2021 came into effect, requiring vaccination for care home workers.
-
Respondent notified employees
The respondent sent an email to employees explaining the mandatory vaccination requirement and medical exemption process.
-
Deadline for first dose
Last date for workers to get first vaccine dose to be fully vaccinated by the Regulations' full force date.
-
Redeployment list sent
Claimant was sent a list of nearly 40 pages of internal vacancies but did not apply.
-
Investigation meeting
Claimant stated his refusal was a philosophical decision and confirmed he had no medical exemption.
-
Disciplinary hearing invitation
Claimant invited to disciplinary hearing; informed of likely dismissal if no exemption or redeployment.
-
Dismissal hearing
Claimant dismissed after confirming he would not be vaccinated and had not applied for vacancies.
-
Dismissal confirmed
Claimant received dismissal letter confirming reason: refusal to be vaccinated without medical exemption.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal rejected; claimant's trade union representative confirmed no medical exemption was claimed.
-
Repeal of Regulations
Respondent wrote to claimant notifying him of available vacancies after Regulations were repealed.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's refusal to be vaccinated due to his religious and philosophical beliefs could amount to a protected belief under the Equality Act 2010, and whether his dismissal for refusing vaccination was unfair or discriminatory.
The outcome
The tribunal ordered the claimant to pay a deposit of £1,000 as a condition of continuing his claims, finding they had little reasonable prospect of success. The key reasons were:
- The respondent was legally required under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 Regulations to ensure care home workers were vaccinated unless medically exempt.
- The claimant did not claim a medical exemption and refused to apply for redeployment despite being given a list of nearly 40 pages of vacancies.
- Another employee who self-certified a medical exemption was treated differently, but the tribunal noted the claimant had not sought a similar exemption.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were not successful at this stage.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you refuse a mandatory vaccination due to a legal requirement, you may need to show a medical exemption or accept redeployment to avoid dismissal.
- A philosophical belief against vaccination may not be protected under the Equality Act if it is not a genuinely held belief of sufficient cogency, seriousness, and importance.
- Employers facing a legal duty to require vaccination should offer redeployment opportunities to unvaccinated employees where possible.
- Tribunals can order a deposit if a claim appears to have little reasonable prospect of success, which may deter weak claims from proceeding.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates the difficult position employers and employees faced during the mandatory Covid-19 vaccination requirements for care home workers. The claimant, a deputy manager with six years' service, refused vaccination due to his religious and philosophical beliefs. The respondent, Cambian Asperger Syndrome Services Ltd, was legally required to ensure all workers in its CQC-regulated home were vaccinated unless medically exempt. The claimant did not seek a medical exemption and declined to apply for any of the nearly 40 pages of internal vacancies offered to him.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant could have applied for a medical exemption if he had a valid reason, or explored redeployment to a non-care role where vaccination was not required. By refusing both options, he left the employer with no alternative but to dismiss him to comply with the law. The tribunal noted that another employee who self-certified a medical exemption was not dismissed, highlighting the importance of engaging with the exemption process.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This decision confirms that tribunals will scrutinise claims where an employee refuses a legally mandated requirement without seeking available alternatives. The deposit order of £1,000 serves as a warning that pursuing weak claims can carry financial risks. For employers, it reinforces the need to follow a fair process, including offering redeployment and considering exemptions, when dismissing for a statutory reason.
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.
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.
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.
Nurse with 10 years' service wins constructive dismissal after trust failed to explore redeployment
A community staff nurse who resigned after her NHS trust failed to contact her about redeployment during long-term sickness has won her constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal awarded £41,935.