Sales agent dismissed after refusing to accept PR role with sales duties: claims fail
A sales agent with seven months' service was fairly dismissed after refusing to accept a PR manager role that required some sales tasks. Her claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination, and whistleblowing were all rejected.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #public-interest-disclosure
- #race-discrimination
- #disability-harassment
- #health-and-safety-detriment
- #victimisation
- #breach-of-contract
- #falsified-evidence
Key facts
- The second claimant, Huda Kademi, was employed as a sales agent from 9 March 2020 until her dismissal on 2 October 2020.
- She was offered a PR manager role after a probation review but refused to perform any sales tasks, leading to dismissal.
- The tribunal found that the claimant had not made a protected disclosure to her employer; a disputed WhatsApp message was excluded as unreliable.
- The claimant was not disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 as her heart condition did not last 12 months.
- The tribunal concluded that the claimant was dismissed because she would not agree to the required sales duties, not because of race or protected disclosures.
Timeline
-
Start of employment
Huda Kademi started work as a sales agent for Hansbiomed Europé Ltd.
-
Su Park promoted to sales manager
Su Park was promoted to sales manager instead of the claimant.
-
Discussion about working from home
Sam Yu asked the claimant why she could work two days but not three in the office; she was allowed to work from home pending heart scan results.
-
Offer of PR manager role
The claimant was offered the role of PR manager at £30,000 per annum, subject to a work plan and probation.
-
First alleged protected disclosure
The claimant texted Su Park about CQC registration concerns; the tribunal found this was not a disclosure of information by the claimant.
-
Second alleged protected disclosure
The claimant allegedly texted Sam Yu about CQC issues; the tribunal excluded this message as unreliable.
-
Grievance meeting
The claimant raised complaints about race discrimination and exclusion; the meeting focused on her refusal to do sales tasks.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed with immediate effect, paid one month's notice, because she would not agree to any sales duties.
-
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, subjected to detriment, or discriminated against because of race, disability, or protected disclosures, and whether the respondent breached her contract.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims brought by the second claimant.
Key reasons:
- The claimant was not disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 because her heart condition did not last 12 months.
- The alleged protected disclosures were not made out: one was not a disclosure of information, and the other was based on an unreliable WhatsApp message.
- The claimant was dismissed because she refused to agree to any sales duties, which was a conduct reason. The employer had offered her a new role but she insisted on a pure PR role with no sales tasks.
- The dismissal was fair in the circumstances given her short service and the breakdown in trust.
No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Short-service employees have fewer protections – a fair process can be quicker, but must still be reasonable.
- Refusing to perform reasonable duties as agreed in a role change can justify dismissal for conduct.
- To bring a disability discrimination claim, you must show the condition meets the Equality Act definition, including lasting 12 months.
- Whistleblowing claims require a clear disclosure of information that tends to show a legal breach – general concerns may not suffice.
- Tribunals will scrutinise the reliability of evidence, especially WhatsApp messages, and may exclude them if authenticity is in doubt.
A role change that led to dismissal
This case shows how a dispute over job duties can lead to dismissal, particularly when an employee has only short service. The claimant was employed as a sales agent but was offered a PR manager role after her probation review. She accepted the role but refused to perform any sales tasks, despite the role requiring some sales duties. After several discussions, she was dismissed for refusing to agree to the required duties.
The tribunal found that the employer acted reasonably. The claimant had only seven months' service, and the employer had offered her a new role with a clear work plan. When she insisted on a pure PR role with no sales, the employer concluded that the working relationship had broken down. The dismissal was for conduct, not for any protected characteristic or disclosure.
What the employer did right
The employer offered the claimant a new role after her probation review, which showed flexibility. They held meetings to discuss her concerns and gave her time to consider the role. When she refused to agree to any sales duties, they decided to dismiss, paying one month's notice. The tribunal noted that the employer's decision was within the range of reasonable responses, especially given the claimant's short service.
Why the other claims failed
The claimant also brought claims of race discrimination, disability discrimination, and whistleblowing. The tribunal found that her heart condition did not meet the 12-month duration requirement for disability. The alleged protected disclosures were not made out: one was a text about CQC registration that the tribunal found was not a disclosure of information, and another was a WhatsApp message that was excluded as unreliable. The tribunal concluded that the real reason for dismissal was her refusal to do sales duties, not any protected act.
Key takeaway
This case is a reminder that employees with short service have limited protection against dismissal, provided the employer follows a fair process. It also highlights the importance of clearly documenting role changes and ensuring that any refusal to perform duties is handled consistently.
Similar cases
Driving examiner dismissed for photographing personal data: tribunal rejects discrimination and whistleblowing claims
A driving examiner with 14 years' service was dismissed for taking photos of a colleague's personal data. The tribunal found the dismissal fair and rejected all claims of discrimination and whistleblowing detriment.
Constructive dismissal after whistleblowing and disability harassment: a partial win for former employee
A former employee who resigned after being required to attend a disciplinary investigation meeting following protected disclosures has won claims for detriment, disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation, but her constructive unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. She was awarded £12,822.78.
Whistleblowing dismissal: team leader with 13 years' service wins unfair dismissal claim
A team leader dismissed for failing to complete accident reports was unfairly dismissed because the real reason was his whistleblowing. Tribunal awards £40,670 after 30% reduction for his conduct.
Care worker wins unfair dismissal claim but gets nothing after conduct findings
A former care worker succeeded in her unfair dismissal claim against Mihomecare Limited, but the tribunal reduced her compensation to zero because of her own conduct and the likelihood she would have been dismissed anyway.