Night care assistant dismissed for sleeping on duty: dismissal upheld
A night care assistant who was found asleep on three occasions was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal also rejected his claims of discrimination and whistleblowing detriment.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #sleeping-on-duty
- #gross-misconduct
- #sexual-orientation-discrimination
- #whistleblowing
- #disability-discrimination-struck-out
- #time-limits
- #public-interest-disclosure
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a night care assistant from 19 January 2018 until dismissal on 30 April 2021.
- The claimant was found asleep on duty on three occasions in March and April 2021, supported by photographs.
- The claimant admitted being asleep on at least one occasion and made inconsistent statements about the other incidents.
- The claimant's disability discrimination claim was struck out due to lack of medical evidence of hearing impairment.
- The claimant's claims of sexual orientation discrimination and victimisation were dismissed for lack of evidence and time limits.
- The claimant made two protected disclosures regarding failure to report a collapse and Covid testing arrangements, but these did not influence his dismissal.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as a night care assistant at Redmond Lodge care home.
-
First sleeping incident
Claimant found asleep in lounge at 01:59; buzzer in room 29 was unanswered.
-
Second sleeping incident
Claimant found asleep by lift at 03:48; room 7 buzzer unanswered.
-
Third sleeping incident
Claimant found asleep in manager's office at 05:17; room 7 buzzer unanswered.
-
Investigatory interview
Claimant interviewed by Sue King; he signed notes but later disputed their accuracy.
-
Disciplinary hearing invitation
Claimant invited to disciplinary hearing for gross misconduct (sleeping on duty).
-
Disciplinary hearing
Hearing chaired by Georgina Braithwaite; claimant admitted sleeping on one occasion.
-
Dismissal
Claimant summarily dismissed for gross misconduct (sleeping on duty).
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by Anne-Marie Prothero; decision to dismiss upheld.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented ET1 claim form to Employment Tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed (automatically or ordinarily) for sleeping on duty, and whether he suffered discrimination, harassment, victimisation, or whistleblowing detriment.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims.
- The unfair dismissal claim failed because the employer genuinely believed the claimant had slept on duty based on photographic evidence and admissions, and followed a fair procedure.
- The disability discrimination claim was struck out early because medical evidence showed normal hearing.
- The sexual orientation discrimination and victimisation claims were dismissed as out of time and lacking evidence.
- The whistleblowing claims failed because the protected disclosures did not influence the dismissal.
No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Sleeping on duty in a care role is likely to be treated as gross misconduct, especially where resident safety is at risk.
- Employers should ensure they have clear evidence (such as photographs) and follow a fair disciplinary process to defend a conduct dismissal.
- Claimants must bring discrimination claims within three months of the act complained of, or risk being out of time.
- A disability discrimination claim requires medical evidence of a disability; inconsistent statements about symptoms can undermine credibility.
- Protected disclosures must be a material reason for the dismissal to succeed in a whistleblowing claim; if the employer had a separate, genuine reason, the claim will fail.
This case illustrates how a straightforward misconduct dismissal can survive tribunal scrutiny when the employer has clear evidence and follows proper procedure. The night care assistant was found asleep on three separate occasions in March and April 2021, with photographic evidence and admissions. The employer's investigation and disciplinary hearing were reasonable, and the appeal upheld the decision.
What the employer did right
Runwood Homes Ltd had a genuine belief in the misconduct, supported by photographs and the claimant's own admissions. The disciplinary process was fair: the claimant was invited to a hearing, given the opportunity to respond, and the decision to dismiss for gross misconduct was within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal noted that sleeping on duty in a care home could put residents at risk, making summary dismissal appropriate.
Why the discrimination and whistleblowing claims failed
The claimant also alleged disability discrimination based on hearing impairment, but medical evidence showed normal hearing, and his own statements were inconsistent. That claim was struck out early. His sexual orientation discrimination and victimisation claims were brought too late and lacked evidence. The whistleblowing claims failed because the protected disclosures – about a failure to report a collapse and Covid testing – were not the reason for his dismissal; the sole reason was the sleeping incidents.
Key takeaway for employees
This case is a reminder that employees in safety-critical roles must stay alert. For employers, it shows that a well-documented investigation and consistent application of disciplinary rules can defeat multiple claims. For anyone considering a tribunal claim, the outcome underscores the importance of adhering to time limits and having solid evidence for discrimination or whistleblowing allegations.
Similar cases
Whistleblowing detriment claims partially struck out for being out of time
A former employee's whistleblowing detriment claims against BAE Systems have been partially struck out as out of time, but her constructive dismissal and some other claims can proceed.
Trader dismissed for alleged leak after raising mismarking concerns: unfair dismissal upheld
A trader with 7 years' service was unfairly dismissed by EDF Trading Limited after a flawed investigation into an alleged leak of confidential information. The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair but rejected his whistleblowing claim.
15-year director dismissed for soliciting colleague to join competitor: whistleblowing claim rejected
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a non-executive director of sales who was sacked for soliciting a fellow employee to join a competitor. His claims of whistleblowing and unfair dismissal were rejected.
Lead Software Consultant's whistleblowing claims dismissed as out of time
An employment tribunal struck out a Lead Software Consultant's whistleblowing detriment and automatically unfair dismissal claims, leaving only an ordinary unfair dismissal claim to proceed. The tribunal also refused the employer's bid to strike out the remaining claim due to the claimant's conduct.