Read on for our monthly digest for employers on upcoming employment law changes and key, recent employment tribunal cases.
Unfair dismissal & age discrimination
Korpysa v Impact Recruitment Services
Ms Korpysa was employed by Impact Recruitment Services Ltd and placed with Howden Joinery Ltd as a warehouse operative. When Howdens no longer required her services, she contacted Impact Recruitment a week later. The company claimed she requested her holiday pay and P45, implying she had secured another job and resigned. Ms Korpysa denied this, arguing she had not resigned or requested a P45. After receiving her P45, she brought claims for unfair dismissal and age discrimination.
The Employment Tribunal (ET) dismissed the age discrimination claim but upheld the unfair dismissal claim. It ruled that Impact Recruitment’s mistaken belief that she had resigned was not a fair reason for dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA). Impact Recruitment appealed the decision.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) overturned the ET’s decision and remitted the case to a new tribunal for reconsideration. It found that an erroneous but genuine belief that an employee has resigned could be considered a substantial reason for dismissal (SOSR) under section 98(1)(b) of the ERA. The ET failed to consider this. Once an employer proves a dismissal was for SOSR, fairness must be assessed under section 98(4) of the ERA, which the ET did not properly apply.
Employer Takeaways
Employers must confirm resignations clearly to avoid disputes – relying on assumptions can lead to unfair dismissal claims. If dismissing based on SOSR, employers must apply section 98(4) ERA correctly to determine fairness and ensure their belief is genuine, reasonable and well-documented.
Unfair dismissal
Easton v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Border Force)
Mr Easton applied for a position with the Border Force (Home Office) and listed only years in the Employment History section of his application, concealling a three-month gap after being dismissed for gross misconduct from a previous Home Office role. He did not disclose this information during his interview.
After being hired, the Home Office discovered his previous dismissal and lack of disclosure. They concluded he had deliberately withheld relevant information and dismissed him for gross misconduct. Mr Easton claimed unfair dismissal, arguing that he was penalised for not providing details that were not explicitly requested.
The ET ruled that the dismissal was fair, finding that a reasonable applicant would understand that the Employment History section required full disclosure, including gaps.
Mr Easton appealed, but the EAT upheld the decision. It confirmed that the ET had properly assessed whether the employer could reasonably expect applicants to provide a transparent employment history.
Employer Takeaways
This decision highlights the importance of honesty in both recruitment and disciplinary processes; employers rely on transparency to make informed decisions about a candidate’s suitability, workplace interactions and overall trustworthiness. Where an employee omits or conceals material information, it can breach trust and justify dismissal. The tribunal reaffirmed that such omissions can amount to misconduct, provided the employer follows a fair process and ensures the decision is proportionate.
Employers should clearly communicate expectations for full disclosure, conduct thorough investigations and apply disciplinary actions consistently. If handled correctly, a dismissal based on a lack of transparency is likely to be upheld.
Religious or belief discrimination
Higgs v Farmor’s School
In Higgs v Farmor’s School, Kristie Higgs, a Christian pastoral administrator at Farmor’s School in Gloucestershire, was dismissed for gross misconduct in 2019 after sharing Facebook posts critical of LGBTQ+ relationship education in primary schools. Her posts, shared on her personal account, expressed concerns about teaching “gender fluidity” and equating same-sex marriage with traditional marriage, reflecting her religious beliefs. An anonymous complaint from a parent led the school to investigate, resulting in her suspension and subsequent dismissal. Higgs claimed her dismissal was discriminatory based on her religious beliefs.
The Employment Tribunal initially dismissed Higgs’s claims, stating her dismissal was due to concerns about potential reputational damage rather than her beliefs. The Employment Appeal Tribunal later allowed her appeal, remitting the case for reconsideration. On 12 February 2025, the Court of Appeal ruled in Higgs’s favor, stating that dismissing an employee solely for expressing a protected belief constitutes unlawful direct discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. The court found that while the school argued the posts were intemperate and could harm its reputation, there was no evidence Higgs’s conduct at work was affected or that her posts caused actual reputational damage. The court concluded that her dismissal was not a proportionate response and thus constituted unlawful discrimination.
Employer Takeaways
This case highlights the need for employers to balance employees’ rights to express protected beliefs with potential reputational concerns. Employers should:
Assess Context and Impact: Evaluate whether an employee’s expression of beliefs affects their professional conduct or the organization’s reputation. Mere expression, without workplace impact, may not justify dismissal.
Ensure Proportional Responses: Any disciplinary action should be proportionate to the conduct. Dismissal may be deemed excessive if less severe measures suffice.
Document Decision-Making: Maintain thorough records of the rationale behind disciplinary actions, demonstrating consideration of both the employee’s rights and the organisation’s interests.
Unfair dismissal
Taylor v Metroline Travel Ltd,
In Taylor v Metroline Travel Ltd, Mr Taylor, a bus driver employed by Metroline, was dismissed for gross misconduct following a physical altercation with a driver from another bus company over a parking bay at a bus depot. During the incident, Mr Taylor left his bus unattended, contrary to company policy. Metroline conducted an investigation, during which Mr Taylor was provided access to CCTV footage of the incident and had the opportunity to present his account. Despite his explanations, Metroline concluded that he had breached their disciplinary and diversity policies and decided to terminate his employment. Mr Taylor subsequently filed a claim for unfair dismissal.
The Employment Tribunal initially found in favour of Mr Taylor, deeming the dismissal substantively unfair. The ET identified issues with Metroline’s disciplinary process, including perceived inadequacies in evidence collection and inconsistencies in handling similar incidents.
However, upon appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned this decision. The EAT determined that the ET had improperly substituted its own judgment for that of the employer. The EAT emphasised that the ET should have assessed whether Metroline’s actions fell within the range of reasonable responses available to a reasonable employer, rather than imposing its own view on the matter.
Consequently, the case was remitted to a different tribunal for reconsideration.
Employer Takeaways
This case underscores the importance for employers to conduct thorough investigations, ensuring all relevant evidence is collected and considered during disciplinary proceedings. Keep detailed records of the rationale behind disciplinary actions to support the reasonableness of decisions if challenged.
Disciplinary policies must also be applied uniformly to avoid perceptions of unfair treatment.
Need Assistance?
If you have a question about employment case law and the impact of tribunal and court decisions on your business, we can help. Working closely with our specialist human resource colleagues, we offer a holistic advisory and support service for employers encompassing both the legal and people risks of workforce management. Speak to our experts today for advice.
Author
Founder and Managing Director Anne Morris is a fully qualified solicitor and trusted adviser to large corporates through to SMEs, providing strategic immigration and global mobility advice to support employers with UK operations to meet their workforce needs through corporate immigration.
She is a recognised by Legal 500 and Chambers as a legal expert and delivers Board-level advice on business migration and compliance risk management as well as overseeing the firm’s development of new client propositions and delivery of cost and time efficient processing of applications.
Anne is an active public speaker, immigration commentator, and immigration policy contributor and regularly hosts training sessions for employers and HR professionals
