Feet first into trouble: Tribunal rules security guard’s dismissal for barefoot sofa break was not discrimination

December 16, 2025
Introduction

A security guard who spent his shift lying barefoot on a sofa brought a claim against his former employer for unfair dismissal and discrimination on the grounds of race and/or religion or belief. The Claimant, who was of Moroccan descent and Muslim, argued that if his name been Michael he would not have been criticised in the same way; however, a Tribunal has recently dismissed his claims.

Background

The Claimant was initially employed by the Respondent as a full-time mobile response security guard. His employment in this role was terminated following a probation review which graded him ‘Not Acceptable’ in the following categories: knowledge of the job, time management, conduct, attitude and initiative. The Respondent confirmed to the Claimant that he had not passed his probation but that they would like to retain him as a ‘Relief Security Officer’ until a full-time position became available. The Claimant did not appeal against the decision to terminate the full-time role and accepted the zero hours contract.

The Claimant worked a couple of shifts as part of his zero hours contract at Premier Foods. After one of these shifts, a senior manager at Premier Foods sent the Respondent two timestamped security stills of the Claimant from their CCTV. These images showed the Claimant lying down on a sofa in the reception area with his shoes and socks off. The two pictures were from 3:35 am and 5:34 am, indicating that the Claimant had remained in the same position for two hours, a period during which he was supposed to be patrolling the premises.

The Respondent became concerned upon receiving the images, primarily due to the requirement for security guards to be appropriately dressed and able to respond swiftly to incidents. There were also hygiene concerns regarding the placement of the Claimant’s feet. In addition, the Respondent feared losing a longstanding client and the potential reputational damage that could follow. To address these concerns, the Respondent assured Premier Foods that the Claimant would not return to their site.

The Claimant was telephoned and told that he would not be able to return to the Premier Foods site because of the incident, and the Respondent subsequently investigated and determined that they would no longer offer the Claimant shifts.

In contrast, the Claimant asserted in his claim form that he was on a scheduled break when the images were captured and had completed his site patrols during the interval between the two CCTV recordings. He described his actions as ‘human nature’ and denied being barefoot, stating instead that he was wearing sliders.

The Claimant also raised complaints that the only time he was offered shifts on the zero hours contract was when someone else was unwell and that he was given ‘difficult shifts far away on a night shift 2 hours to travel to the sites’.

Tribunal’s decision

The Claimant’s unfair dismissal claim was struck out at an earlier Tribunal because he did not have the requisite two years’ service to bring an unfair dismissal claim. In relation to the discrimination claim, the Tribunal determined that the reason for the dismissal was because the Claimant had not moved from the sofa during the time period in question and had not carried out the patrol as he should. The Tribunal determined that there was nothing in the facts that suggested that the Claimant’s dismissal was because of his race or religion.

Lessons for employers
  1. Monitor performance effectively. If performance is unsatisfactory, outline expectations so that improvements can be made.
  2. Have clear written policies relating to behaviour, dress code and hygiene standards. These policies should be provided at the beginning of employment and be accessible to staff going forward.
  3. Document the reasons behind decisions, as this will be vital if a dispute later arises.
How we can help

For further information or to discuss the issues raised within this case, please contact us to speak to a member of our Employment Team.

This reflects the law and market position at the date of publication and is written as a general guide. It does not contain definitive legal advice, which should be sought in relation to a specific matter.

Darren Smith
Partner, Employment
<script>
document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', function () {
  const deptEl = document.getElementById('acf-author-department');
  const department = deptEl?.dataset?.department;

  if (typeof gtag === 'function' && department) {
    gtag('set', { author_department: department });
  }
});


  window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
  const dept = document.getElementById("author-department")?.textContent?.trim();
  if (dept) {
    window.dataLayer.push({
      event: "authorDataReady",
      author_department: dept
    });
  }

</script>
View profileContact Us
Isabella Milnes-James
View profileContact Us

This reflects the law and market position at the date of publication and is written as a general guide. It does not contain definitive legal advice, which should be sought in relation to a specific matter.

Latest Legal Insights