Security guard dismissed for sleeping on duty: tribunal rejects discrimination claims
A security guard who was dismissed after being found asleep during his shift at Bloomberg LLP has lost his claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination. The tribunal found the employer acted reasonably and the discrimination claims had no merit.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by Seal Security UK Ltd as a security guard from 2018.
- He was dismissed on 16 February 2022 for gross misconduct after being found asleep during his shift at Bloomberg LLP premises.
- The claimant alleged discrimination on grounds of race, religion, and disability, as well as unfair dismissal and protected disclosure detriment.
- All claims against Bloomberg LLP were struck out as the claimant was not their employee or worker.
- The tribunal found that the claimant's disability discrimination claims had no reasonable prospect of success because his disability arose after the conduct leading to dismissal.
- The claimant's complaints of race and religion discrimination, victimisation, and protected disclosure detriment were either out of time or failed on the merits.
Timeline
-
Alleged harassment by Dale McKenzie
The claimant alleges that Dale McKenzie of Bloomberg used derogatory language regarding Eid or Friday prayers, but the amendment to add this claim was refused.
-
First sleeping incident
The claimant was alleged to have been asleep on duty on 31 July 2021.
-
Second sleeping incident
The claimant was alleged to have been asleep for 33 minutes on 2 August 2021.
-
Third sleeping incident
The claimant was alleged to have been asleep on duty on 12 August 2021.
-
Suspension from work
The claimant was suspended from work on allegations of sleeping on duty.
-
GP visit for stress
The claimant visited his GP and was diagnosed with stress disorder, insomnia, anxiety, and other symptoms.
-
Grievance lodged
The claimant sent a written grievance to Seal regarding invasion of privacy, holiday booking, and race discrimination.
-
Disciplinary meeting invitation
The claimant was invited to a disciplinary meeting regarding the sleeping incidents.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct (sleeping on duty).
-
Appeal rejected
The claimant's appeal against dismissal was rejected.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal for sleeping on duty was unfair, and whether he was subjected to discrimination on grounds of race, religion, or disability, or detriment for making protected disclosures.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant's dismissal for gross misconduct (sleeping on duty) was fair. The employer had a genuine belief in the misconduct after a reasonable investigation and the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses.
The claimant's disability discrimination claims were struck out because his disability arose after the conduct leading to dismissal, so the employer could not have known about it. Race and religion discrimination claims were either out of time or failed on the merits. The protected disclosure claims were also dismissed.
No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Sleeping on duty is a serious misconduct that can justify dismissal, especially in security roles where vigilance is critical.
- Employers must still follow a fair process — investigate, give the employee a chance to respond, and consider any mitigating factors.
- Discrimination claims must be brought in time (usually 3 months less one day from the act complained of) and must show a link between the protected characteristic and the treatment.
- A disability that arises after the alleged discriminatory conduct cannot form the basis of a disability discrimination claim against that conduct.
- Protected disclosure claims require clear evidence of a qualifying disclosure made in the public interest — vague allegations are unlikely to succeed.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates that even where an employee has a long service record, gross misconduct such as sleeping on duty can still lead to a fair dismissal. The security guard had been employed since 2018 but was dismissed after being found asleep during his shift at Bloomberg LLP. The tribunal accepted that the employer's investigation was reasonable and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses for a role where alertness is essential.
The claimant also brought a wide range of discrimination claims, but these failed because they were either brought too late or lacked evidence. For example, the disability claim was struck out because the claimant's disability (stress disorder) was diagnosed after the sleeping incidents, so the employer could not have known about it at the time.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant could have focused on the fairness of the dismissal process rather than adding multiple discrimination claims that had little chance of success. The tribunal noted that the claimant's representative was not legally qualified, which may have contributed to the scattergun approach. A more focused claim might have had a better outcome, though the dismissal itself was found to be fair.
Why this result matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that employers can dismiss for gross misconduct like sleeping on duty, provided they follow a fair procedure. It also shows that tribunals will scrutinise discrimination claims carefully and will strike out those that have no reasonable prospect of success early on, saving time and costs. Employees considering claims should ensure they have clear evidence and bring them within the statutory time limits.
Similar cases
Probationary lecturer dismissed for poor performance: all claims fail
A physiotherapy lecturer who was dismissed during her probationary period for failing a Performance Improvement Plan has lost her claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination, and victimisation against Cardiff University.
Wrongful dismissal claim succeeds as Tesco admits conduct was not gross misconduct
A Tesco night-shift customer assistant who was dismissed for gross misconduct has won his wrongful dismissal claim after the tribunal found he was entitled to notice pay. He was awarded £400.
Consultant gynaecologists dismissed for victimisation: unfair process but no compensation
Two long-serving consultant gynaecologists were unfairly dismissed by Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because they would have been dismissed anyway and were wholly at fault.
HR Business Partner dismissed after one month for whistleblowing: £74,540 awarded
An HR Business Partner who raised concerns about a flawed redundancy process was dismissed after just one month. The tribunal awarded £74,540 after striking out the employer's response.