Swearing Chef Awarded £13K by Tribunal Following Anxiety-Fuelled Outburst

Published : June 17, 2025

In Ms Abbie Garner v Thorpe Hall Leisure Limited, the employment tribunal awarded over £13,000 to a disabled chef who was dismissed after swearing at work. The swearing chef successfully argued that her employer failed to make reasonable adjustments during the disciplinary process. While the tribunal accepted that dismissal may still have been justified, it found that her employer should have considered the impact of her medical conditions on her behaviour.

Below, we examine what happened and the tribunal’s judgment. If you have any questions about disability discrimination at work, please contact Redmans Solicitors now. As employment law specialists, we can provide expert advice and help resolve your problem.

Learn how we could help you today by:

The Facts in Ms Abbie Garner v Thorpe Hall Leisure Limited

Swearing Chef: Disability Discrimination at Work Claim Background

Ms Garner (“the Claimant”) worked as a chef for Thorpe Hall Leisure Limited (“the Respondent”) from the summer of 2022. She left to work at a separate establishment in August, but returned on 28 November. Suffering from anxiety, depression, and Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (“PCOS”), the Claimant was legally considered disabled.

The Respondent was aware of her conditions, as evidenced by the Claimant taking periods of sick leave throughout her employment. It knew that she was taking medication to help manage her symptoms and was dealing with ongoing mental health problems.

In February 2023, despite working in a stressful kitchen, the Claimant received top marks for her mood during an appraisal. Her commitment was also labelled “very good,” but she was told to work on taking criticism better.

Personal Dispute Leads to Misconduct at Work

On 9 August 2023, at 17:47, several of the Respondent’s employees heard shouting and swearing. Issues arose after the Claimant discovered that Mr Dylan Bolt, one of her colleagues and someone she’d been in a relationship with, had allegedly slept with one of her friends.

Witnesses claimed she said, “You f*cking made me love you, then you cheated on me, you c*nt.” Mr Bolt replied, stating, “I’m not f*cking doing this now,” to which she responded, “f*ck off then.” The argument continued until another colleague stepped in to calm the situation.

Unfortunately, this argument began in a corridor that connected to both the spa reception and an outdoor sunbathing area, continuing into the outdoor loading bay. This was problematic, since many guests frequented these spaces and heard the interaction.

The following day, several guests complained about the incident, and an investigation was initiated. This was assisted by the Respondent’s HR consultants, who advised that the conduct of the swearing chef could potentially amount to gross misconduct, meaning dismissal was an option. That said, the Respondent was told not to take any action until after a disciplinary hearing.

Disciplinary Proceedings and Outcome for the Swearing Chef

Six days after the incident, on 15 August, the Claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing. The hearing was scheduled for 18 August, and the letter cited two instances of gross misconduct. These included “the use of aggressive behaviour and excessive bad language,” and “actions that have resulted in bringing the Respondent into disrepute.”

During the hearing, while the swearing chef admitted to using foul language on 9 August, she failed to recognise the true impact of her behaviour. She didn’t apologise, but blamed Mr Bolt for what had happened, asking whether he, too, was subject to disciplinary action.

Before the hearing took place, the Respondent was prepared to issue a warning to the Claimant. However, since she was late to the hearing and acted inappropriately, dismissal was deemed the appropriate course of action. In the Respondent’s view, the Claimant’s continued employment threatened its reputation, something it didn’t want to jeopardise.

Disability Discrimination at Workplace Claim Brought

By 22 August, the swearing chef received a letter confirming her dismissal and informing her of her right to appeal. She wrote to appeal the dismissal three days later, but didn’t confirm the grounds on which she was appealing. Nevertheless, the Respondent proceeded with scheduling an appeal hearing for 13 September.

The Claimant didn’t receive notification of this hearing, however, since she’d moved to a new address, and the letter had been sent by post. She, therefore, didn’t attend but learned that her appeal had been dismissed on 22 September.

As a result, following her unsuccessful appeal, the Claimant turned to the employment tribunal. She commenced Acas early conciliation on 7 September and presented her claims on 20 December. Among them, she claimed wrongful dismissal, denial of the right to be accompanied, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and discrimination arising from disability.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Swearing Chef wins £13,000 in Compensation

Following the proceedings, the swearing chef withdrew her claims of wrongful dismissal and failure to allow the right to accompaniment. As such, the employment tribunal turned to the claim of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability.

The Claimant argued that her outburst on 9 August and conduct during the disciplinary meeting arose as a result of her disabilities. The tribunal accepted that her inability to control her anger and her abruptness were, in fact, consequences of her disabilities and that her dismissal was unfavourable treatment.

That said, it held that the Respondent was justified in dismissing her as it had various legitimate aims—namely, wanting to uphold its reputation and not tolerating unprofessional conduct by staff. While some of the Claimant’s behaviour may have arisen as a consequence of her disabilities, her lack of accountability and blame deflection did not.

However, this wasn’t the end. The tribunal then deliberated on the claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments. Here, the Claimant argued that she was put at a substantial disadvantage throughout the disciplinary process, as she wasn’t provided the opportunity to explain her conditions and the potential impact they had on her conduct.

Since the Claimant’s behaviour had previously been given top marks and the Respondent was aware of her conditions, the tribunal believed the Respondent should have investigated the cause of her unusual behaviour. Because it didn’t, it was held that the swearing chef had been put at a substantial disadvantage. In the tribunal’s view, had the Respondent obtained medical evidence, “there was a reasonable prospect this could have led to a different outcome.”

Therefore, while the Claimant may have been dismissed anyway, the tribunal found the duty to provide reasonable adjustments had been breached. As a result, the Claimant was awarded £13,455.91.

Get Help with Redmans

If you believe you have faced any form of workplace disability discrimination, please contact Redmans Solicitors today. As employment law specialists, we can discuss your case, answer your questions, and provide guidance on your possible next steps. All you have to do to get started is:

The information on this page is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.