Reablement Support Worker dismissed for homophobic harassment after raising PPE concerns
The tribunal dismissed all claims by a former NHS support worker who alleged he was unfairly dismissed for raising concerns about PPE, finding that his disclosures were not protected and his dismissal was due to gross misconduct involving homophobic harassment.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #protected-disclosure
- #whistleblowing
- #sexual-harassment
- #victimisation
- #wrongful-dismissal
- #ppe-dispute
- #homophobic-conduct
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Reablement Support Worker from 4 March 2019 until 23 October 2020.
- The claimant made disclosures about being required to undertake personal care without a face mask on 17 April 2019.
- The claimant was suspended from clinical duties on 29 April 2019 due to concerns about patient care and failure to follow instructions.
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after an incident with a colleague (Z) on 22 July 2019, which was found to be homophobic harassment.
- The tribunal found that the claimant's disclosures were not protected because his belief in the health risk was not reasonable.
- All claims of detriment, automatic unfair dismissal, sexual harassment, victimisation, and wrongful dismissal were dismissed.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began work as a Reablement Support Worker at North East London NHS Foundation Trust.
-
Protected disclosures made
Claimant verbally raised concerns with manager Helen Moody and sent emails to HR about being required to do personal care without a face mask.
-
Redeployed to Single Point of Access team
Claimant was removed from clinical duties and redeployed to a non-patient-facing role due to concerns about patient care and failure to follow instructions.
-
Stopped attending work
Claimant stopped attending the Single Point of Access team after about a week, citing sexual harassment by Margaret Staples.
-
Incident with colleague Z
Claimant had a confrontation with colleague Z, which was later found to be aggressive and homophobic harassment.
-
Full suspension
Claimant was fully suspended from all duties following the incident with Z.
-
Disciplinary hearing
A disciplinary hearing was held, chaired by Joseph Lindo, where the claimant was found guilty of gross misconduct.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct, including refusing to follow instructions and homophobic harassment of Z.
-
Claim presented to tribunal
Claimant presented his claim to the employment tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's concerns about not wearing a face mask during personal care were protected disclosures, and whether his dismissal and other treatment were because of those disclosures or for other reasons, including allegations of sexual harassment and victimisation.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the claimant's disclosures about PPE were not protected because his belief that his health was endangered was not reasonable given the NHS guidance at the time. The tribunal also found that the claimant was not subjected to detriments or automatically unfairly dismissed for making disclosures. The claims of sexual harassment and victimisation were also dismissed. The tribunal concluded that the claimant was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct, including homophobic harassment of a colleague.
Lessons & takeaways
- To qualify as a protected disclosure, you must have a reasonable belief that the information tends to show a relevant failure; an unreasonable belief, even if honestly held, will not be protected.
- Employers should ensure that disciplinary processes are thorough and fair, but if the reason for dismissal is genuine misconduct unrelated to any disclosure, a whistleblowing claim is unlikely to succeed.
- Making allegations of discrimination or harassment does not automatically protect you from dismissal if your own conduct is found to be the real reason for dismissal.
- If you are representing yourself at tribunal, ensure you understand the legal tests for each claim; the tribunal will apply the law strictly.
A case about context and credibility
This case illustrates how the context in which an employee raises concerns can determine whether those concerns amount to protected whistleblowing. The claimant, a Reablement Support Worker with 19 months' service, raised concerns in April 2019 about being required to perform personal care without a face mask. However, the tribunal found that his belief that this endangered his health was not reasonable, given that at the time NHS guidance did not mandate masks for such tasks. As a result, his disclosures were not protected under whistleblowing law.
The claimant's dismissal came months later, following an incident in July 2019 where he was found to have harassed a colleague on the grounds of their sexuality. The tribunal accepted that this was the real reason for his dismissal, not his earlier PPE concerns. The disciplinary process, while not perfect, was found to be within the range of reasonable responses for an employer.
What could have been done differently?
The claimant could have sought to understand the legal requirements for a protected disclosure, particularly the need for a reasonable belief. He also could have avoided the conduct that led to his dismissal. For the employer, the case shows that even when an employee raises concerns, a fair and thorough investigation into misconduct can protect a dismissal from being found unfair.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that whistleblowing claims are not a shield against dismissal for unrelated misconduct. Employees who raise genuine concerns should ensure they do so in a way that is reasonable and based on accurate information. Employers should continue to follow fair procedures, but can be confident that a dismissal for clear misconduct will be upheld if the process is sound.
Similar cases
Audit Assistant Manager loses constructive dismissal and race discrimination claim against Grant Thornton
An Audit Assistant Manager with 2 years' service who resigned after being placed on a performance improvement plan has lost his claims of constructive unfair dismissal, race discrimination and whistleblowing detriment. The tribunal found the employer had reasonable cause for its actions.
Whistleblowing tractor operative awarded £94,838 after being sent home and dismissed
A tractor operative who reported unsafe equipment to the Environment Agency and his employer was subjected to detriment and dismissed. The tribunal awarded him £94,838.50 for injury to feelings, unpaid wages, and the employer's failure to provide written particulars.
Care worker who reported colleague's PPE breaches wins whistleblowing claim
A care worker with nine months' service was constructively dismissed after reporting a colleague's failure to wear PPE and other concerns. The tribunal found she was subjected to detriments and victimised for making protected disclosures.
Whistleblowing and sexual harassment claims succeed despite constructive dismissal failure
A former employee won £24,250 after the tribunal found she was victimised and sexually harassed following protected disclosures about hygiene issues, though her constructive unfair dismissal claim failed.