The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld a previous decision by the Employment Tribunal (ET), confirming that a Home Office employee was fairly dismissed after failing to disclose key details in his job application, in a case that underscores the importance of honesty in recruitment processes.
The case, Easton v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Border Force), centred on Mr Easton, who previously worked for the Home Office from 2002 until his dismissal in June 2016 for gross misconduct involving inappropriate behaviour and temper issues. After a three-month gap in employment, he joined the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) later that year.
In 2018, Mr Easton applied to return to the Home Office via a role in the Border Force. In his application, he listed his Home Office employment as spanning “2002 – 2016” and his DWP role as beginning in “2016 to current,” omitting any reference to the reason for his departure from the Home Office or the employment gap in between. He also ticked a confirmation box acknowledging that providing false information or omitting relevant details could lead to disciplinary action or rejection.
After being rehired, a disciplinary investigation was launched when the details of his 2016 dismissal came to light. Mr Easton was subsequently dismissed again — this time for gross misconduct due to his failure to disclose material information during the recruitment process. He appealed internally without success and later brought his case to the Employment Tribunal.
The ET ruled that his dismissal was fair and within the “band of reasonable responses” expected of an employer in such circumstances, especially within a government organisation where trust and integrity are paramount. The tribunal also concluded that the recruitment process followed was “thorough” and reasonable.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal agreed, stating that Mr Easton’s method of presenting his employment history — by years rather than specific dates — obscured important details, including a prior dismissal and a period of unemployment. The EAT found that the ET had correctly determined the employer was entitled to view the omission as deliberate and dishonest.
The ruling reinforces the importance for employers to conduct detailed background checks and for job applicants to be transparent. Legal experts note that organisations should request full employment histories, including specific dates, reasons for leaving roles, and explanations for any gaps in employment. Employers are also urged to treat application verifications as a key step in the hiring process, rather than a formality.
The decision offers a reminder that misleading or incomplete job applications can constitute gross misconduct — and may justify dismissal if handled with a fair and thorough disciplinary process.
