If you’re reviewing disciplinary processes or want guidance on managing complex employee matters, complete the form below or call 0330 123 9501 to speak to our Employment law and HR team.
An employee who fell asleep at work and lied about it was found to have been unfairly dismissed. This case highlights the importance of proportionate disciplinary action, mitigation, and understanding internal policies for employers.
19 November 2025
Case Study
Falling asleep at work can have serious consequences, particularly in roles with high responsibility or safety implications. However, an employee who fell asleep during a night shift and subsequently misled his employer was found to have been unfairly dismissed and awarded over £20,000 in compensation. To many employers, this may seem like an unjust outcome, highlighting the importance of carefully considering the circumstances behind such incidents and following a proportionate disciplinary process.
Mr Okoro had been employed by Bidvest Noonan for 16 years, working night shifts in a shopping centre control room monitoring CCTV. On one night, during his sixth consecutive night shift, he appeared to fall asleep for around 15 minutes. When questioned, he said he had been resting his eyes and meditating, and disclosed that he had a medical condition requiring him to close his eyes. Although he agreed to an Occupational Health assessment, he refused to allow the results to be shared with his employer.
Despite his explanations, Mr Okoro was dismissed for gross misconduct. He subsequently brought a claim before the Cambridge Employment Tribunal (ET). Notably, the hearing proceeded in his absence after a last-minute postponement request was denied.
Case Study
The ET found that Mr Okoro had been unfairly dismissed and awarded him over £20,000 in compensation.
While the employer argued that the employee’s role carried significant responsibility and that falling asleep posed potential risks, the Tribunal highlighted several mitigating factors:
The ET concluded that the dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses. Instead, a written warning would have been more proportionate, reflecting that the incident was a one-off and unintentional.
This case offers several lessons for employers handling similar situations:
The Court of Appeal has provided important guidance on the enforceability of training repayment clauses in employment contracts.
Read More
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has clarified when employers may be deemed to have knowledge of an employee's disability.
Read More
Download our probationary period resource pack to help prepare for the Employment Rights Act changes from January 2027.
Read More
An employer's failure to involve an employee in an investigation led to findings of disability discrimination and compensation.
Read More
The EAT highlights the limits of protected conversations and the risks employers face when discussions are handled incorrectly.
Read More
Employer ordered to pay over £264,000 after a reference referring to an ongoing dispute was found to amount to victimisation.
Read More
Download expert guidance on UK trade union reforms and prepare your organisation for Employment Rights Act changes.
Read More
EAT confirms endometriosis can be a disability and examines reasonable adjustments, dismissal risks and performance management issues for employers.
Read More
EAT confirms withdrawing a conditional job offer can breach contract with employers understanding when an offer is binding and notice applies.
Read More
EAT confirms leaving transferred staff on inferior terms can amount to indirect discrimination, even under TUPE.
Read More
EAT confirms dismissal must be based on the employer’s actual reason, not a substitute. Incorrect reasoning can make dismissal unfair.
Read More
EAT finds dismissal unfair in Milrine v DHL (2026). Key lessons for employers on appeal processes and reducing tribunal risk.
Read More