The Claimant was employed for more than 20 years by the Respondent, a registered not-for-profit charity. He was charged with a serious criminal offence, appeared in court and was released on bail. He was suspended on full pay pending investigation, and he was then dismissed because of the potential reputational risk to the Respondent. The Claimant brought proceedings in the ET for unfair dismissal, but his claim was rejected. He appealed on the grounds that the ET had erred (1) in failing to consider whether the Respondent had undertaken as much investigation into the matter as was reasonable, and (2) in concluding that the Respondent had acted reasonably in treating the risk of reputational damage as a sufficient reason to dismiss.

The EAT held that the ET was entitled to conclude that the option of dismissing the Claimant fell within the band of reasonable responses open to the Respondent. The ET was correct to consider that the Respondent had adequately explored the question of risk to reputation, drawing a direct link between the nature of the charges against the Claimant and the risk to reputation which arose from the potential risk to the vulnerable patients at its premises.