Work coach dismissed for accessing his own benefits account: disability discrimination claim fails
A work coach with one year's service was dismissed for accessing his own Universal Credit account from his work laptop. The tribunal rejected his claims of disability discrimination, finding he had committed the misconduct.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed for accessing his own Universal Credit account from his work computer on three occasions in December 2021.
- The claimant had a previous disciplinary for the same offence in May 2021 but was reinstated on appeal.
- The claimant worked from home as a reasonable adjustment due to his disability (anxiety and emotionally unstable personality disorder).
- The tribunal found that the claimant did access his account on the three occasions, rejecting his defence of computer error.
- The respondent had a credible basis for dismissal based on a computer audit and the claimant's own email activity.
- The tribunal concluded that the dismissal was not because of disability or anything arising from it.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as a work coach for DWP.
-
First disciplinary for unauthorised access
Claimant accessed his own Universal Credit account; dismissed but reinstated on appeal due to procedural defect.
-
Return to work after illness
Claimant returned on a phased return, working from home due to disability.
-
First alleged unauthorised access (Dec 1)
Computer audit showed access at 5:50pm, claimant said he finished at 5pm.
-
Second alleged unauthorised access (Dec 15)
Access at 11:57am; claimant said he had a medical appointment at 11am.
-
Third alleged unauthorised access (Dec 31)
Access at 5:12pm; claimant said he finished at 4:30pm.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed for gross misconduct after disciplinary hearing.
-
Tribunal hearing day 1
Employment tribunal hearing held via CVP in Leeds.
-
Tribunal hearing day 2 and judgment
Oral judgment dismissing all claims.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal for unauthorised access to his own records amounted to direct disability discrimination or unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of his disability (working from home as a reasonable adjustment).
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both claims of disability discrimination.
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after a computer audit showed he accessed his own Universal Credit account from his work laptop on three occasions in December 2021.
- He had a previous disciplinary for the same offence in May 2021 but was reinstated on appeal.
- The tribunal rejected his defence that the access was due to a computer error, finding that the audit and his own email activity proved he had logged in.
- Because the claimant had committed the misconduct, the dismissal was not because of his disability or his working from home.
- No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can rely on computer audit trails to prove misconduct, even when the employee denies it.
- A previous disciplinary for the same offence can make a dismissal more likely to be fair if the employee repeats the behaviour.
- Working from home as a reasonable adjustment does not protect an employee from dismissal for misconduct that is unrelated to their disability.
- Tribunals will assess credibility carefully: if an employee changes their story during the hearing, it can undermine their case.
When a reasonable adjustment doesn't shield misconduct
This case shows that even when an employee has a disability and is working from home as a reasonable adjustment, they can still be fairly dismissed for misconduct that is unrelated to their condition. The claimant, a work coach with just over a year's service, was dismissed after a computer audit revealed he had accessed his own Universal Credit account from his work laptop on three separate occasions in December 2021.
He had already been through a disciplinary for the same offence in May 2021, when he was dismissed but reinstated on appeal due to a procedural defect. The tribunal noted that the respondent had a credible basis for dismissal based on the computer audit and the claimant's own email activity, which showed he was logged in at the times in question.
The credibility problem
The claimant argued that the access was due to a computer error or that the timings were wrong. However, the tribunal found that his evidence changed during the hearing: initially he could not explain the emails sent from his laptop, then he claimed the timestamps were incorrect, and only in written submissions did he suggest he might have used his mobile phone. The tribunal unanimously rejected this defence, finding that he had in fact accessed his account.
Because the misconduct was proven, the dismissal was not because of his disability or anything arising from it. The tribunal emphasised that working from home was a reasonable adjustment for his anxiety and personality disorder, but that did not give him carte blanche to breach the respondent's data access policy.
What this means for similar claims
Employees who are dismissed for misconduct while on reasonable adjustments will need to show a clear link between their disability and the behaviour. In this case, the claimant could not do so. The decision also highlights the importance of consistent evidence: changing your account during the hearing can damage credibility. For employers, the case confirms that computer audit trails can be powerful evidence, and that a previous disciplinary for the same offence can justify a tougher sanction second time around.
Similar cases
Dismissed during long-term sick leave: BT failed to get up-to-date medical advice
A programmer with 17 years' service was unfairly dismissed by BT after the company relied on a six-month-old medical report and ignored an offer of updated evidence. The tribunal awarded £46,939.95.
Dismissed without a meeting or appeal: a conduct case with big reductions
A former employee of Fairview Grocers Limited was unfairly dismissed without any meeting or right of appeal, but his own conduct led to a 60% cut in compensation. He was awarded £3,752.89 in total.
Claim struck out after failure to comply with tribunal orders due to ill-health
A former employee's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims against Marks and Spencer were struck out after she failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not actively pursue her claim.
Claims struck out after former employee fails to attend hearing or comply with orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims have been struck out after he failed to attend a preliminary hearing and did not comply with tribunal orders to provide evidence.