Clinically extremely vulnerable manager dismissed for refusing to return to unsafe office: unfair dismissal and disability discrimination
A branch manager with 12 years' service who was clinically extremely vulnerable to COVID-19 was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against after his employer demanded he return to an office he considered unsafe. The tribunal found the disciplinary process was a sham.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant had a splenectomy, asthma, and atrial fibrillation, making him clinically extremely vulnerable to COVID-19.
- The claimant was demoted from Branch Manager to Senior Parts Adviser due to poor sales performance, not because of his disability.
- The respondent required the claimant to return to work at a branch office in August 2020, but the claimant refused, citing COVID-19 safety concerns.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct after a disciplinary process that the tribunal found to be a sham.
- The respondent failed to consider reasonable adjustments, such as allowing the claimant to work from home temporarily.
Timeline
-
Claimant started employment
Mr D Smith commenced employment as Branch Manager at Tunbridge Wells branch.
-
Claimant diagnosed with atrial fibrillation
The claimant attended A&E and was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation, requiring medication and cardioversion.
-
Meeting about sales performance
Nick Allen and Kevin Mallett met the claimant at a coffee shop, discussing poor sales and offering a transfer or performance targets.
-
Claimant began shielding
Due to his medical conditions, the claimant started shielding on NHS advice because of COVID-19.
-
Demotion decision
Kevin Mallett informed the claimant that due to unmet sales targets, he would be moved to a non-managerial role at a different branch.
-
Agreed transfer to Parkwood
The claimant agreed to transfer to Parkwood branch as a Senior Parts Adviser, with same salary and hours.
-
GP fitness note
The claimant's GP issued a note stating he could return to work only if the workplace was Covid-secure, or he should work from home.
-
Respondent's return-to-work letter
Ann Hepper wrote to the claimant, enclosing photos of a proposed upstairs office, and requiring return by 24 August or face disciplinary action.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct due to his refusal to return to work.
-
Appeal dismissed
Caroline de Lucy dismissed the claimant's appeal and rejected his grievances.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for refusing to return to work was fair and whether the employer discriminated by failing to make reasonable adjustments and by dismissing because of something arising from disability.
The outcome
The tribunal unanimously held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and that the respondent discriminated against him under sections 15 and 20/21 of the Equality Act 2010.
The key reasons were:
- The disciplinary process was a sham – the decision to dismiss was pre-ordained.
- The respondent failed to consider the obvious reasonable adjustment of allowing the claimant to work from home temporarily, given his clinical vulnerability.
- The dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of something arising from his disability (his need to shield), and the respondent failed to justify it.
Compensation will be determined at a separate remedy hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must genuinely consider reasonable adjustments for disabled employees, especially during a pandemic – a 'no home working' policy is not a blanket answer.
- A disciplinary process that ignores updated medical evidence and fails to engage with the employee's concerns is likely to be found a sham.
- Clinically extremely vulnerable employees are protected by disability discrimination law – refusing to return to an unsafe workplace may be a consequence of disability, not misconduct.
- Length of service (here 12 years) strengthens the expectation that the employer will act reasonably and follow a fair process.
This case shows what can happen when an employer treats a disabled employee's health concerns as insubordination rather than a disability-related request for flexibility. The claimant, a branch manager with 12 years' service, had a splenectomy, asthma, and atrial fibrillation, making him clinically extremely vulnerable to COVID-19. When his employer demanded he return to an office in August 2020, he refused, citing safety concerns and a GP note recommending home working. Instead of exploring alternatives like temporary home working, the respondent rushed through a disciplinary process that the tribunal described as a 'sham' – the outcome was pre-ordained.
What the employer did wrong
The respondent failed to engage with the claimant's disability. It did not consider the obvious reasonable adjustment of allowing him to work from home, even though other employees had done so pre-pandemic. The disciplinary hearing ignored the GP's note and proceeded as if the claimant's refusal was simple misconduct. The tribunal found that the real reason for dismissal was the claimant's disability-related inability to work in the office, making the dismissal discriminatory under section 15 of the Equality Act.
Why this matters
For employees in similar situations, this case reinforces that employers cannot simply insist on a 'one size fits all' return-to-work policy when a disabled employee has genuine health concerns. The duty to make reasonable adjustments is proactive – the employer must consider alternatives, not just say 'it's not possible'. The fact that the claimant was a long-serving employee also weighed heavily: a fair employer would have given him more leeway and properly considered his medical evidence. The remedy hearing will determine compensation, but the liability judgment sends a clear message that dismissing a clinically vulnerable employee without proper process and reasonable adjustments is unlawful.
Similar cases
Store manager dismissed for COVID breaches: employer's response was reasonable
A tribunal has dismissed all claims of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal brought by a store manager with 7 years' service who was sacked for failing to enforce social distancing and misleading Test and Trace during the pandemic.
Covid-19 safety concerns: dismissal for refusing to attend work upheld
An installation engineer who refused to attend work over Covid-19 safety fears was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal also rejected his disability discrimination claim as out of time.
Production operative dismissed during long-term sick leave: unfair dismissal claim fails on service
A production operative who was dismissed while on sick leave for plantar fasciitis and depression lost her unfair dismissal claim because she had less than two years' service. All disability discrimination claims were also dismissed.
Security officer dismissed after back injury: tribunal finds unfair dismissal and disability discrimination
A security officer with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after a back injury. The tribunal also found that CIS Security Ltd failed to make reasonable adjustments and discriminated against him arising from his disability.