Good Samaritan carer who took lonely patient home for family New Year’s Day dinner sacked for ‘act of kindness’

A carer who invited a lonely disabled patient to his family’s New Year’s dinner was dismissed for ‘act of kindness’, an employment tribunal heard.

Support worker Paul McPhail extended the invitation after learning that the patient’s family could not accommodate him and that he would otherwise spend the day alone at home.

The Scottish worker stated that the patient was ‘excited’ about this situation and added that he received permission from the patient’s brother to be the guest of the McPhail family.

The court heard Mr McPhail was sacked by Lifeways Group for ‘unprofessional’ behavior and accused of developing a personal relationship with the patient.

Mr McPhail’s unfair dismissal claim was rejected by an employment tribunal in Glasgow despite claiming he was just doing ‘a good thing’.

Mr McPhail worked for Lifeways Group from August 2018 until his dismissal in April 2025, providing 24-hour care in the patient’s home. He shared the care duties of the patient, who cannot be named for legal reasons, with two other employees.

The court heard the patient’s brother had lost social custody at the time of the incident.

In February 2025, a social worker notified Elizabeth McKnight, Mr. McPhail’s assistant line manager, about the New Year’s Day invitation.

Mr McPhail was subsequently invited to an inquiry meeting in March.

It appears that the fired worker took the patient to his home, did not document the visit on New Year’s Day, and did not declare a conflict of interest regarding his professional relationship.

At the meeting Mr McPhail said: ‘I wrote that he came to my house and had a wonderful New Year’s dinner with me and my family.

‘I even have photos’ [the service user] I was at mine with my family and I sent them to me [the service user’s] My brother was very pleased with this.

‘It was me, my wife, my daughter, my weaned child and my dog. [The service user] He had a great time and even asked when he would be back.

‘I jokingly said yes, maybe next year. It was a nice gesture I felt. Social work complimented the service.

‘Even you complimented me. The last thing I want to do is cause or do anything wrong.’

The incident was later brought to a disciplinary meeting in April.

At the meeting, Mr McPhail stated that the service was ‘going through a turbulent period’ with the departure of staff and the death of a ‘long-standing staff member’.

He continued: ‘It was chaos. [service user’s] the family were upset with the previous staff member and were concerned for his welfare.

‘[He] he was self-harming, he was anxious and wanted things [the member of staff who died].

‘The family later said: [service user] I couldn’t go home with them for New Year’s Eve, so I suggested to my parents that I could take him home for New Year’s and they approved.

‘Then I asked my wife if it would be a problem, and she said yes it would be very nice. When I got back to the service I told Lizzie McKnight I would take her home that day and she said that would be nice. I told Amir too, but no one said anything.

‘I feel like I did something good. I crossed a line, but I always looked out for the public’s interests. [service user] ‘On my mind.’

Mr McPhail was dismissed after the meeting for gross misconduct. The decision was confirmed in a letter sent in May.

The letter said: ‘I propose and accept the purchase. [the service user] Going home with family members present is a boundary violation, and you were fully aware of the identified risks associated with it. [the service user].

‘You didn’t just put [the service user] You are at risk, but you are also putting yourself and your family members at risk.

‘We expect all Lifeways employees to follow and comply with the company’s policies and procedures.

‘It should also be noted that [the service user’s] The brother is not a welfare guardian and guardianship is currently in the hands of the local authority.

‘As a Lifeways employee, you have a responsibility to inform management of this conflict of interest, which you did not do.

‘I also think your actions demonstrate an abuse of power and authority and it was clear at the disciplinary hearing that you did not understand the seriousness of your actions.

‘You had no authority or power to make this decision’ [the service user] and so does the brother.

‘You couldn’t control this with management. I don’t believe in the balance of the odds of you “passing” the assistant principal and him telling you “this will be nice”.

‘Management was not aware of what was going on until it was raised as a concern by social work on 1 January 2025.’

Employment Judge Muriel Robison ruled that Mr McPhail was not unfairly dismissed.

He said: ‘[Mr McPhail’s] representatives asked the Court to find that [he] He was a professional and respected carer, available 24/7 in service users’ homes, which I have no reason to doubt.

‘I completely understand why’ [he] He believes he was treated harshly for what he described as “an act of kindness” under difficult circumstances at work and why he did not think it was serious enough to justify his dismissal.

‘But as he will now be fully aware, there is a range of reasonable responses open to an employer, and even if this Court considers that dismissal is too harsh in certain circumstances, the particular context in which the defendant operates means that what is reasonable in one context is not in another.

‘So I cannot say that dismissal was unfair in the particular circumstances of this case because dismissal for gross misconduct falls within the range of reasonable responses open to the defendant. Therefore, the claim must be rejected.’

A spokesperson for Lifeways Group said: ‘We accept the decision of the Employment Tribunal in Glasgow, which was heard in part in October 2025 and March 2026.

‘Lifeways will always prioritize the safety of those we support. In this case, the person we support would not be alone.

‘Mr McPhail was being paid to look after that person in his own home that day, he had no power or authority to do otherwise.

‘Lifeways made the correct decision to dismiss, given the clear evidence of gross misconduct, and Judge Robison’s judgment supports this. We will continue to defend any claims made against us.’