Medical secretary dismissed for refusing office move: conduct dismissal upheld
A medical secretary who refused a management instruction to move offices and was verbally aggressive was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal rejected her claims of race discrimination and victimisation.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #race-discrimination
- #victimisation
- #unfair-dismissal
- #refusal-to-follow-instruction
- #verbal-aggression
- #office-move
Key facts
- The claimant was a medical secretary employed by the respondent NHS trust.
- She was dismissed for refusing a reasonable management instruction to move offices and for verbal aggression towards her manager.
- The claimant had previously raised a grievance alleging race discrimination, which was a protected act.
- The tribunal found that the respondent genuinely believed in the misconduct and had reasonable grounds for dismissal.
- The tribunal dismissed all claims of race discrimination, victimisation, and unfair dismissal.
Timeline
-
Claimant raises grievance
The claimant raised a grievance against Liz Head alleging race discrimination and breach of confidentiality.
-
Natalie Mansford becomes acting line manager
After the claimant complained about Sue O'Reilly, Natalie Mansford became her acting line manager.
-
Incident in Naheed Nasir's office
The claimant refused to leave Ms Nasir's office when asked by Ms Mansford, leading to a confrontation.
-
First office move discussion
Ms Mansford informed the claimant about the planned office move; the claimant became confrontational and refused to move.
-
Second office move discussion and suspension
The claimant again refused to move offices and was verbally aggressive; she was suspended pending investigation.
-
Investigation meeting
The claimant attended an investigation meeting with her union representative.
-
Disciplinary hearing
A disciplinary hearing was held chaired by Ms Howells.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct (refusing a management instruction and verbal aggression).
-
Appeal hearing
The claimant's appeal was heard by Lisa Glynn and Eleanor Singleton Smith; the appeal was rejected.
-
Claim presented to tribunal
The claimant presented her claim to the employment tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed and whether she suffered race discrimination or victimisation in relation to her suspension, disciplinary procedure, dismissal, and the composition of the appeal panel.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims of unfair dismissal, race discrimination, and victimisation.
The key reasons were:
- The respondent genuinely believed the claimant had refused a reasonable management instruction and been verbally aggressive.
- The investigation and disciplinary process were reasonable in the circumstances.
- There was no evidence that race played any part in the treatment of the claimant.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were not well-founded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Refusing a reasonable management instruction can amount to gross misconduct, especially if accompanied by verbal aggression.
- Raising a protected act like a race discrimination grievance does not give blanket protection against dismissal for subsequent misconduct.
- Employers should ensure they have a genuine belief in misconduct based on reasonable grounds after a fair process.
- Tribunals will scrutinise whether the employer's decision falls within the range of reasonable responses, not whether they would have made the same decision.
A conduct dismissal that passed the fairness test
This case shows that even where an employee has previously raised a grievance about race discrimination, a subsequent refusal to follow a reasonable management instruction can lead to a fair dismissal. The medical secretary was asked to move offices as part of a planned reorganisation. She not only refused but became confrontational and verbally aggressive towards her line manager.
The employer, Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust, suspended her pending investigation, held a disciplinary hearing, and dismissed her for gross misconduct. The tribunal found that the trust genuinely believed in the misconduct and had carried out a reasonable investigation. The dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer.
What the employer did right
The trust followed a proper disciplinary process: suspension, investigation, disciplinary hearing, and appeal. The decision-maker had a genuine belief in the misconduct based on the evidence, including witness accounts and a recording of the conversation. The tribunal noted that the claimant's previous grievance did not prevent the trust from taking action on the new misconduct.
Why the discrimination claims failed
The claimant argued that her race influenced the decision to suspend her, the disciplinary outcome, and the composition of the appeal panel. The tribunal found no evidence of race discrimination or victimisation. The treatment was based on her conduct, not her race. The appeal panel's composition was not shown to be discriminatory.
Key takeaway for employees
While raising a grievance about discrimination is a protected act, it does not give you immunity from disciplinary action for separate misconduct. Employers are entitled to manage conduct issues fairly and consistently, even when the employee has previously made a protected complaint.
Similar cases
Agency lawyer's race discrimination claims against council dismissed; costs ordered
An agency Contracts and Procurement Lawyer lost her race discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims against the London Borough of Waltham Forest. The tribunal also ordered her to pay costs for pursuing claims with no reasonable prospect of success.
Redundancy dismissal and victimisation claims fail: law enforcement officer loses tribunal case
A law enforcement officer with four years' service was fairly dismissed by redundancy and his claims of race and age discrimination, harassment, and victimisation were dismissed by the tribunal.
Senior engineer made redundant after pandemic downturn: unfair dismissal due to opaque selection process
An employment tribunal found that Bechtel Ltd unfairly dismissed a senior electrical engineer during a redundancy process, ruling that the selection lacked transparency. The claimant's race, caste, and whistleblowing claims were dismissed.
Union representative dismissed after relationship breakdown: victimisation and unfair dismissal
A PE teacher and union rep was unfairly dismissed after a breakdown in relationships with school leadership. The tribunal found her suspension and dismissal were acts of victimisation, but reduced compensation by 50% for her own conduct.