When doing the right thing still goes wrong: Lessons from a firefighter’s unfair dismissal 

A recent Employment Tribunal ruling involving a Buckinghamshire firefighter provides a careful reminder of how a disciplinary process can shift from justified concern to legally vulnerable outcome. 

Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service acted after comments made by Crew Commander Pete Langton during a debrief following a rescue operation. Colleagues were upset by remarks reported as misogynistic and sexualised. The matter was escalated, investigated and ultimately resulted in dismissal. 

The Tribunal later found that dismissal to be unfair. 

This was not a case in which an employer failed to respond to a complaint. The service took the issue seriously and followed a formal process. The difficulty lay elsewhere. The Tribunal was concerned not with whether the remarks were appropriate, but with whether the employer had demonstrated, with sufficient clarity and care, that dismissal was a reasonable and proportionate response based on what had actually been established. 

Characterisation and evidential precision 

In December 2022, following a rescue at Gerrards Cross, Langton commented during a station debrief that the woman pulled from the blaze looked “bad” and “haggard for her age” and used the phrase “pull a pig”, a crude reference to targeting unattractive women. Female colleagues were visibly uncomfortable and a community safety co-ordinator intervened. The matter was subsequently reported to management and treated as serious misconduct. 

After investigation and disciplinary proceedings, Langton was dismissed. He brought a claim for unfair dismissal, which was heard at Watford Employment Tribunal. Employment Judge James Dick concluded that the fire service had overstated the gravity of the misconduct and that the investigation lacked the precision necessary to justify the outcome. 

A central issue was how the conduct had been framed. The employer treated the remarks as sexualised and misogynistic and as part of a wider concern. The Tribunal examined whether that characterisation was properly supported by the evidence gathered. In particular, the “pull a pig” comment had been treated as directed at the rescued woman, whereas the Tribunal found it was more likely a general, albeit offensive, observation. That distinction mattered. Once a dismissal rests on a description of events that goes beyond what the evidence can clearly sustain, the decision becomes difficult to defend. 

An investigation that begins with a settled view of what the conduct must have meant risks narrowing the evidence to fit the conclusion. Tribunals expect findings that emerge from the evidence itself. Precision in recording what was said, in what context and to whom is not a technical exercise. It is often the foundation on which the fairness of the outcome rests. 

Proportionality and the choice of sanction 

The judgment also underscores the importance of careful reasoning when selecting a sanction. Dismissal is the most serious step an employer can take. Even where conduct is inappropriate and colleagues have been affected by it, the employer must show why lesser measures would not have addressed the issue. A final written warning, mandatory equality training, or other corrective steps are recognised disciplinary tools. Where an employer moves directly to dismissal, the explanation must demonstrate why the employment relationship has been so fundamentally undermined that continuation is not viable. 

In Langton’s case, the fire service treated the incident as not isolated. The Tribunal did not accept that conclusion. He had been employed since 2006 and promoted to Crew Commander in 2020. Other concerns were raised during the disciplinary process, including allegations of rudeness and falling asleep during a presentation, but these were separate matters and did not amount to a documented history of similar misconduct. The distinction between a single lapse of judgement and a pattern of behaviour is often decisive. If escalation depends on repetition, that repetition must be clearly established. 

The handling of disciplinary history 

This leads to a broader point about disciplinary records. Most policies provide that written warnings remain live for a defined period before expiring. That expiry is part of the fairness of the system. Once a warning has lapsed and there has been no further incident within the live period, it should not quietly re-emerge as a factor justifying dismissal. Allowing expired sanctions to influence decision-making risks undermining the integrity of the process, even where there is no deliberate intention to do so. 

Informal file notes present a related challenge. Recording concerns without invoking a formal disciplinary procedure can be appropriate. Difficulties arise when those notes have no clear status, no expiry and have never been tested through a fair process, yet are later relied upon to suggest a pattern of behaviour. Escalation to dismissal must be grounded in established findings and live sanctions, not in an accumulation of informal material that has not been properly scrutinised. 

It would be wrong to interpret this case as discouraging employers from addressing inappropriate workplace conduct. Standards of behaviour matter, and colleagues who are affected by remarks of this nature are entitled to expect action. The Tribunal did not criticise the fire service for taking the complaint seriously. The problem arose in the space between that decision to act and the way the process unfolded. 

Taking conduct seriously and running a fair disciplinary process are not competing objectives. They depend on each other. An investigation that identifies precisely what was said, in what context and why it amounts to misconduct, a sanction that reflects a measured assessment of the individual’s history and the seriousness of the incident, and a decision letter that explains clearly why dismissal is necessary will place an employer in a strong position. 

Where findings are imprecise, where characterisations extend beyond the evidence, or where disciplinary history is allowed to carry more weight than policy permits, even a well-intentioned employer may find its decision overturned. 

About the Author: Steph Marsh is the Head of the Employment Law team at Coodes Solicitors. She has extensive experience in supporting both employers and employees on contentious and non-contentious matters, particularly surrounding discrimination issues, redundancy situations and data protection law. 

Get in touch: steph.marsh@coodes.co.uk  01579 324 017