Residential Support Worker dismissed after Covid protocol breach: unfair dismissal claims fail but contract claim succeeds
A tribunal dismissed claims of automatic unfair dismissal, pregnancy discrimination, race discrimination and victimisation brought by a Residential Support Worker who was dismissed after breaching Covid protocols. The employer was ordered to pay £1,355.65 for giving only one week's notice instead of four.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #covid-protocol-breach
- #probationary-period
- #pregnancy-miscarriage
- #race-discrimination-allegation
- #victimisation-allegation
- #breach-of-contract-notice
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Residential Support Worker from 1 March 2021 to 28 February 2022.
- The claimant's probationary period was not formally extended in writing as required by her contract.
- On 21 December 2021, the claimant attended work with Covid symptoms and without taking a lateral flow test, contrary to the respondent's procedures.
- The decision to dismiss was taken in late December 2021, before the respondent knew the claimant was or had been pregnant.
- The claimant was dismissed on 28 February 2022 for concerns about professionalism, attitude, conduct, and loss of trust.
- The respondent conceded breach of contract by giving one week's notice instead of four weeks.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a Residential Support Worker.
-
Probationary period end date
The claimant's six-month probationary period was due to end, but no review was conducted.
-
Supervision meeting
Mr Marshall held a supervision meeting with the claimant, raising concerns about phone use, camera off during meetings, and email checking.
-
Covid incident
Claimant came to work with Covid symptoms, did not test, and later left after a confrontation with management.
-
Claimant's email
Claimant sent an email to Mr Marshall, which she later claimed was a protected act alleging race discrimination.
-
Miscarriage disclosed
Claimant told Lauren Lomas she had a miscarriage.
-
Dismissal meeting
Mr Marshall held a probationary review meeting and told the claimant she was dismissed with one week's notice.
-
Employment terminated
Claimant's employment ended.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal was automatically unfair because of pregnancy, or an act of race discrimination or victimisation, and whether the employer breached the contract by giving insufficient notice.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all discrimination and unfair dismissal claims. It found that the decision to dismiss was taken in late December 2021, before the employer knew the claimant was or had been pregnant. The dismissal was for conduct and performance concerns, not a protected reason.
The employer conceded it had breached the contract by failing to extend the probationary period in writing and giving only one week's notice instead of the contractual four weeks.
- Damages for breach of contract: £1,355.65 (net)
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must follow contractual notice periods and probation procedures even when dismissing for conduct or performance.
- A decision to dismiss taken before pregnancy is known will not be automatically unfair due to pregnancy.
- Employees with less than two years' service have limited unfair dismissal rights, but breach of contract claims can still succeed.
- Allegations of discrimination must be properly evidenced; a single email without more may not amount to a protected act.
What this case shows
A Residential Support Worker with 11 months' service was dismissed after attending work with Covid symptoms without taking a lateral flow test, contrary to her employer's procedures. The employer, Roundabout Limited, also raised concerns about her attitude, professionalism and conduct. The claimant argued the dismissal was linked to her pregnancy and later miscarriage, and that she had been subjected to race discrimination and victimisation.
The tribunal found that the decision to dismiss was made in late December 2021, before the employer knew the claimant was pregnant. The dismissal was therefore for conduct and performance reasons, not pregnancy. The race discrimination and victimisation claims also failed because the claimant's email of 22 December 2021 was not a protected act – it did not clearly allege discrimination.
What the employer did wrong
Although the discrimination and unfair dismissal claims failed, the employer conceded it had breached the claimant's contract. The contract required four weeks' notice, but the employer gave only one week. The employer also failed to formally extend the claimant's probationary period in writing, as required by the contract. The tribunal awarded £1,355.65 in damages for this breach.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that even when an employer has a valid reason to dismiss, it must still follow contractual procedures. Failing to give the correct notice or to document probation extensions can lead to a successful breach of contract claim, even if the main discrimination claims fail. For employees with less than two years' service, unfair dismissal protection is limited, but contractual rights remain enforceable.
Similar cases
Support worker with 16 years' service dismissed for failing to report coffee spill: dismissal fair
A support worker with a clean record was fairly dismissed for failing to document a resident's coffee burn, the Leeds Employment Tribunal has ruled. The tribunal rejected claims of race discrimination and victimisation linked to a 2015 claim.
Unfair dismissal claim struck out due to insufficient service, but employee wins over £950 for other claims
A former employee of Esto Es Espana Ltd had their unfair dismissal claim thrown out because they had worked for less than two years. However, they were awarded £953 for unauthorised wage deductions, breach of contract, and unpaid annual leave.
Whistleblowing during probation: dismissal for suitability upheld
A Head of People Services with only four months' service was dismissed for lack of suitability during her probation. The tribunal found no link between her protected disclosures and the dismissal, rejecting claims of automatic unfair dismissal and detriment.
Personal Assistant dismissed during notice period: employer entitled to act on repudiatory breach
A tribunal rejected a wrongful dismissal claim from a PA with six months' service who was summarily dismissed after blocking her manager on WhatsApp and returning the business phone unattended. No compensation was awarded.