In Davies v Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, an employment tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims of a court officer whose menopausal symptoms led to an incident in which she thought her medication had contaminated a water jug.
In Mbubaegbu v Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the summary dismissal of a surgeon was fair where the trust had relied on a pattern of conduct, but there had been no single act amounting to gross misconduct.
In Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, the Court of Appeal held that, in "last straw" cases, an employee may rely on earlier affirmed breaches of contract provided that the later act forms part of the series.
In Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Haywood, the Supreme Court held that, where an employee was dismissed by letter, her notice period began when she read the letter, or had a reasonable opportunity to do so.
In Reilly v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, the Supreme Court held that a head teacher was fairly dismissed for failing to disclose her association with a convicted sex offender.
In Really Easy Car Credit Ltd v Thompson, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the appeal and held that the employer was not obliged to revisit its decision to dismiss when it became aware that the employee was pregnant.
In Keeping Kids Company (in compulsory liquidation) v Smith and others, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruled that events occurring after redundancy proposals did not excuse a charity's obligation to consult collectively, but could potentially be relied on to reduce the amount of the protective award.
In Guisado v Bankia SA and others, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that there is nothing in EU law to prevent a pregnant worker from being included in collective redundancies.
In NHS 24 v Pillar EAT/0051/16, the EAT held that the inclusion in an investigative report of details about previous conduct in respect of which no disciplinary action was taken did not render a misconduct dismissal unfair.
In Royal Mail Ltd v Jhuti [2018] IRLR 251 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the motivation of a manager who manipulated evidence to procure the dismissal of a whistleblowing employee could not be attributed to the employer, as the decision to dismiss was taken by a manager who was not motivated by the employee's protected disclosures.