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.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Store Manager from 1 July 2013 until dismissal on 12 April 2021.
- The claimant has sarcoidosis, inducible laryngeal obstruction and lumbar disc degeneration, accepted as a disability.
- The respondent required all employees to attend work during the pandemic, save for annual leave or sick leave.
- The claimant was dismissed for failing to ensure social distancing, failing to follow his risk assessment, and misleading Test and Trace.
- The tribunal found the respondent's investigation and dismissal were within the range of reasonable responses.
- The claimant's claims of indirect discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, unfair dismissal and victimisation were all dismissed.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as a Store Manager at B & M Retail Ltd.
-
Meeting about return to work
Claimant told furlough would end and he was expected to return to work as shielding advice was ending.
-
Return to work
Claimant returned to work, initially supernumerary at Preston store.
-
Move to Chorley store
Claimant moved to Chorley store as a reasonable adjustment due to infection rates.
-
Shielding letter received
Public Health England advised claimant to shield as clinically extremely vulnerable.
-
Chorley role ended
Claimant told he could no longer remain at Chorley store; offered alternatives including return to Blackburn.
-
Return to Blackburn
Claimant agreed to return to Blackburn as Store Manager.
-
Positive COVID-19 test
Claimant tested positive for COVID-19 and reported close contact with staff.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed for gross misconduct: failure to social distance, breach of risk assessment, and misleading Test and Trace.
-
Appeal dismissed
Appeal against dismissal was unsuccessful.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether requiring all employees to attend work during the pandemic indirectly discriminated against the disabled store manager, whether the employer failed to make reasonable adjustments, whether the dismissal was unfair, and whether the manager was victimised for bringing previous claims.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims, including indirect disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, unfair dismissal, and victimisation.
Key reasons:
- The employer's requirement for all staff to attend work (unless on annual or sick leave) was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim of keeping stores open and staff employed.
- The employer had made reasonable adjustments by allowing the manager to work at a different store with lower infection rates and by providing a risk assessment.
- The investigation into the misconduct allegations was thorough and the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses.
- The manager was not victimised for bringing previous tribunal claims; the dismissal was solely due to the misconduct.
No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can require attendance during a pandemic if it is a proportionate response to a legitimate business aim, even if it impacts disabled employees.
- Reasonable adjustments must be considered and implemented where possible, but they do not exempt an employee from complying with workplace rules.
- A thorough investigation into alleged misconduct can protect an employer from unfair dismissal claims, even if the employee has a disability.
- Previous tribunal claims do not automatically protect an employee from dismissal for genuine misconduct – victimisation claims require a causal link between the protected act and the dismissal.
This case shows how tribunals balance an employer's operational needs during a global pandemic against the rights of disabled employees. The store manager, who had sarcoidosis and other conditions, was concerned about COVID-19 risks but was expected to return to work when the government's shielding advice ended. B & M Retail made some adjustments, such as moving him to a store with lower infection rates, but ultimately required him to attend work like all other staff.
What the employer did right
The tribunal noted that B & M Retail had a legitimate aim in keeping stores open and protecting jobs. Its policy of requiring attendance (unless on leave) was applied consistently. The employer also conducted a risk assessment and offered alternative roles. When the manager was later dismissed for failing to enforce social distancing and for misleading Test and Trace, the investigation was found to be reasonable and the decision to dismiss fell within the band of reasonable responses.
What the employee could have done differently
The manager might have been better served by formally requesting specific adjustments, such as working from home or additional protective measures, rather than relying on informal discussions. The tribunal found that the employer had made reasonable adjustments by moving him to a different store and providing a risk assessment. The dismissal was not about his disability but about his conduct – failing to follow safety rules and providing misleading information to Test and Trace.
Why this matters
For employees with disabilities, this case is a reminder that reasonable adjustments do not create a blanket exemption from workplace rules. Employers must consider adjustments, but if they are proportionate and the employee still breaches conduct standards, dismissal may be fair. For employers, the case underscores the importance of thorough investigations and consistent application of policies, especially during challenging times like a pandemic.
Similar cases
Seasonal groundsman dismissed while running own business: disability discrimination claims fail
A seasonal groundsman who was dismissed while signed off sick lost his disability discrimination and unfair dismissal claims after the tribunal found he was not genuinely unable to work due to his disability but was instead pursuing his own private businesses.
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.
Constructive dismissal after manager coughed on employee with psoriatic arthritis
An accounts assistant with psoriatic arthritis was constructively dismissed after a manager deliberately coughed in her direction when she asked for social distancing. The tribunal awarded £26,438.84.
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.