WHEN MISCONDUCT MEETS DISABILITY
Recent judgment in Garner v Thorpe Hall Leisure (ET, May 2025)
A recent Employment Tribunal judgment has put discipline and disability back under the spotlight. In A Garner v Thorpe Hall Leisure Ltd (3202500/2023, decision 9 May 2025), a commis chef—dismissed for a foul-mouthed outburst in front of hotel guests—secured £13,500 for disability discrimination. The tribunal accepted Ms Garner’s anxiety, depression and PCOS were disabilities and that her inability to control anger (both in the corridor and during the disciplinary hearing) flowed directly from those conditions.
What the Tribunal Found
The Tribunal accepted that Miss Garner’s inability to control her anger was a consequence of her disabilities.
Her dismissal was therefore unfavourable treatment under Section 15.
However, the employer successfully argued that dismissal was a proportionate response to protect its reputation and maintain professional standards.
Crucially, the Tribunal found the employer had failed to make reasonable adjustments—specifically, it did not seek medical evidence before dismissing her.
Even though the panel assessed there was an 80 % likelihood she would still have been dismissed after a medical report, that procedural failure was enough to trigger liability and damages.
Our Key Takeaways:
1 Spot the Possible Link Early
Uncharacteristic aggression, withdrawal or abruptness can be warning signs of an underlying health issue. If an employee has a known disability, ask open and non-leading questions to see whether their behaviour could be a symptom or consequence of that condition.
2 Pause & Obtain Medical Evidence
Where disability is even a real possibility, obtain an occupational-health or GP report before deciding:
How the condition might have contributed to the behaviour;
Whether medication, therapy or workplace stressors are factors;
What reasonable adjustments could help the employee participate fully in the process or regulate conduct.
Skipping this step cost Thorpe Hall—despite the 80 % dismissal probability.
“These adjustments are not about excusing poor conduct—they’re about ensuring that the process itself does not disadvantage someone because of the effects of a disability. In Garner, the tribunal clearly expected these kinds of considerations to have been made.”
3 Make Reasonable Adjustments to the Disciplinary Process
Where an employee’s behaviour may be linked to a disability, it’s essential to consider what adjustments can be made to ensure the disciplinary process itself is fair and accessible. This could include allowing the employee to be accompanied by a companion with knowledge of their condition—such as a mental health advocate or support worker—or adjusting the format of the hearing to reduce anxiety, such as holding shorter, staged meetings rather than a single, lengthy session.
In some cases, providing written questions in advance can help an employee prepare and avoid becoming overwhelmed or defensive in the moment. Holding the meeting in a neutral or less intimidating setting, or even offering a video meeting as an alternative, may also assist in reducing stress and supporting better communication.
These adjustments are not about excusing poor conduct—they’re about ensuring that the process itself does not disadvantage someone because of the effects of a disability. In Garner, the tribunal clearly expected these kinds of considerations to have been made.
4 Balance Legitimate Aims with Proportionality
The tribunal accepted Thorpe Hall had legitimate aims: protecting reputation and guest experience, however, dismissal must still be the least discriminatory means. Consider whether:
A final written warning plus mandatory support would suffice;
A temporary role change (e.g. back-of-house duties) could remove customer-facing risk;
Coaching or counselling might rehabilitate the employee.
5 Review Policies & Manager Training
Policies – Ensure misconduct, equality and absence procedures cross-reference each other and flag the need for medical input where health is relevant.
Manager training – Role-play difficult conversations and spotting “trigger” behaviours; clarify when to involve HR or OH.
Record keeping – Keep contemporaneous notes of questions asked, evidence considered and why particular adjustments were (or were not) made.
This case is a clear reminder that: Employers must tread carefully, balancing the need for discipline with the duty to accommodate. A failure to do so can lead to costly claims—even where dismissal is ultimately justified. We have an expert team of employment lawyers ready to advise if you're facing similar challenges—let us help you navigate the risks with confidence.
