In the case of Easton v Secretary of State for Home Department (Border Force), the Claimant had previously worked for the Home Office but was dismissed in 2016 for gross misconduct. Following his dismissal, he experienced a three-month period of unemployment before securing new employment with the Department for Work and Pensions.
In May 2019, the Claimant applied for a role within the Home Office's Boarder Force. The job application form included a free-text box for 'Employment History', where the Claimant provided only the years of employment. This approach concealed the three-month gap in his history, following his dismissal for gross misconduct from his earlier Home Office role. The Claimant did not disclose this gap or his prior dismissal during the interview process.
After he was appointed, the Respondent discovered the Claimant's prior dismissal and his failure to disclose it. Following an investigation, the Respondent concluded that this omission was deliberate and dismissed the Claimant for gross misconduct.
The Claimant subsequently claimed unfair dismissal, arguing that he had not been explicitly asked about reasons for leaving previous roles.
The employment tribunal decided the dismissal was fair. It found the Respondent had acted reasonably in concluding that the Claimant had intentionally withheld relevant information. The tribunal determined that a reasonable applicant would understand that an 'Employment History' section required a full and transparent account, including any gaps. The Claimant appealed, arguing that he was being penalised for failing to provide information that had not be explicitly requested.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed the appeal. It held that the employer was entitled to view the omission as a serious integrity issue warranting dismissal. The EAT noted that the tribunal had correctly considered whether the Respondent's expectations were reasonable and concluded that they were, particularly given the nature of the role. A position within the Border Force carries a significant responsibility, akin to regulated professions such as solicitors, where integrity is a fundamental requirement. Officers within Border Force have enforcement powers, are responsible for upholding immigration and customs laws, and must exercise discretion and judgment in potentially high-pressure situations. The need for trust and transparency is such roles was a key factor in justifying the dismissal.
The tribunal and EAT also noted that in sectors such as education, full employment history disclosure is a standard safeguarding requirement. Schools routinely request explanations for employment gaps to assess a candidate's suitability for working with children. Similar standards can be reasonably applied in other roles where integrity and reliability are crucial. The expectation for full disclosure in this case was not arbitrary but consistent with broader recruitment practices in regulated and high-trust environments.
This case highlights the importance of clarity in recruitment processes. Employers should ensure that job application forms explicitly request full employment history, including any gaps and reasons for leaving previous roles. Clear wording can help prevent disputes about whether an applicant was required to disclose particular details. Employers should also conduct thorough pre-employment checks and ensure that policies on dishonesty and disclosure are well-communicated. If an omission or misrepresentation is discovered after hiring, a fair investigation process is essential to determine whether dismissal is a proportionate response.