Suicide following invite to Disciplinary: What employers need to know

The possibility of someone being called to a disciplinary meeting at work and then taking their own life before attending the meeting has played on the minds of many HR professionals at one time or another.

Headlines have been made recently regarding the inquest into the death of Chloe Moffat, a former employee of HM Treasury, which have highlighted both the care which employees need, and the difficulties HR professionals and management face, when dealing with disciplinaries.

The Assistant Coroner concluded that the Treasury had ‘materially contributed’ to Ms Moffat's death by failing to apply its own disciplinary procedures and by not providing sufficient clarity about the potential outcome of the allegations being investigated.

The circumstances of this case are tragic. What may have been a minor incident on an otherwise bright career became the impetus for a young lady losing her life. These findings serve as an important reminder that workplace investigations and disciplinary procedures can have a significant impact on employee wellbeing and mental health, particularly where employees fear for their employment or wider career.

For employers and HR professionals, the case provides an opportunity to review whether existing processes strike the right balance between managing workplace concerns and safeguarding employee welfare.

How did the disciplinary process potentially contribute to this tragic outcome?

Ms Moffat had worked for the Treasury for almost three years and was progressing well in her role. Following anonymous complaints alleging that she had shared information about colleagues, she was invited to an ‘informal fact-finding meeting’.

She denied the allegations.

The inquest heard that, despite the meeting being characterised as informal, managers had already considered the allegations to amount to potential serious misconduct. The Coroner found that Treasury managers did not follow the organisation's disciplinary procedure, which would have required the allegations to be set out formally and for Ms Moffat to be informed of the likely outcomes and sanctions if the allegations were considered well founded.

It was concluded that Ms Moffat feared she would lose her job and that the Treasury's handling of the matter materially contributed to her death. A Prevention of Future Deaths report is expected to be issued to connected organisations, including the Civil Service, the Treasury, and ACAS.

Why does this matter for employers?

Most employers have, at some point, the unpleasant task of investigating concerns about employee conduct.

Often, the focus is rightly placed on ensuring that concerns are investigated thoroughly, evidence is gathered, and appropriate decisions are made. However, the Moffat case serves as a reminder that the process itself can have a profound effect on those involved. There is always a person on the end of a disciplinary.

Being the subject of an investigation can be extremely stressful. Employees likely fear dismissal, damage to their reputation, the loss of future career opportunities, and the loss of their ability to provide for themselves and their families. Where communication is unclear or procedures are not followed consistently, those anxieties worsen and employees may make unfortunate decisions under stress.

This claim highlights an issue that all employers should consider; whether their disciplinary procedures adequately protect employee wellbeing alongside procedural fairness.

Practical steps to consider

Follow your policies and procedures.

An obvious one, but one that can be overlooked in favour of intuition or efficiency. If you don’t have policies in place and need support in drafting them, please feel free to contact us and we can assist you.

Disciplinary and grievance procedures exist to ensure fairness and consistency. If an employer decides that an issue is serious enough to warrant investigation, it should ensure that the appropriate procedure is followed from the outset.

1. Be clear about the purpose of meetings

Employers frequently hold informal discussions as part of workplace management. However, if allegations are serious, there can be a risk that an ‘informal’ meeting feels very much like a disciplinary interview from the employee's perspective. While intention is important, thinking about the effect of meetings on the employee can help prevent situations like this from occurring.

When inviting an employee to a meeting, the following should be clear:

• Why the meeting being held
• What information the employee should have in advance
• That a formal meeting is the most appropriate venue for this discussion
• What the expected outcome is (while treading the fine line to ensure that the investigation is not prejudiced).

Labelling a meeting as informal will not necessarily make it feel informal for the individual concerned.

2. Communicate potential outcomes carefully

One of the key findings in the case was that Ms Moffat was not informed that the likely outcome, if the allegations were proven, would be a written warning rather than dismissal. The difficulty arises in treading the line between communicating potential outcomes and prejudicing the investigation. If a decision appears to have been made prior to an investigation which leads to a decision to dismiss, that dismissal may be procedurally or substantively unfair.

To mitigate this issue, employees should generally have a clear understanding of:

• The allegations being considered
• The stage reached in the process
• The range of potential outcomes
• What decisions have not yet been made.

Clear communication helps reduce uncertainty and can prevent employees from making assumptions about the worst possible outcome.

3. Consider employee wellbeing throughout the process

From a business perspective, the focus throughout these processes tends to be on ensuring that the correct process is followed and that the risks of reproach are mitigated. It can sometimes be difficult to factor an emotional understanding into this focus. Where possible and appropriate:

• Conduct regular welfare check-ins
• Signpost any available support services (including local mental health support)
• Refer to Occupational Health referrals (where appropriate)
• Provide details of any employee assistance programmes
• Identify a point of contact for concerns.

Supporting employee wellbeing does not undermine a robust investigation. In many cases, it makes the process fairer, more effective, and the employee more likely to engage in the process.

4. Train managers to recognise signs of distress

Line managers are often the first people to notice when an employee is struggling.

While managers are not expected to be mental health specialists, they should be able to identify warning signs and know when further support may be required. Mental health training, as it becomes more prevalent and widespread, has become more competitive and less expensive than one might expect.

Where possible, management training should cover:

• Recognising signs of significant stress or anxiety
• Responding within a reasonable timeframe to concerns raised
• Providing a clear pathway to escalating wellbeing issues to HR
• Understanding the support available within the organisation.

Early intervention can make a significant difference.

Lessons to be learned and what may follow

The findings in the Moffat inquest are likely to generate further discussion about investigation and disciplinary practices. The Coroner specifically identified concerns that may extend beyond a single employer and has indicated that wider recommendations may follow. We will likely cover these when they are released, so do follow us for updates.

For HR professionals, the case is a powerful reminder that disciplinary procedures are about more than compliance with policies and employment law. They involve real people, often experiencing significant uncertainty and stress.

Employers who combine procedural fairness with a genuine focus on employee wellbeing are likely to be better placed to reduce risk, maintain trust, and create a healthier workplace culture.

The tragic circumstances of this case will be difficult for many to read. However, they also provide an opportunity for employers to reflect on whether their own processes are clear, fair, and supportive, and whether more can be done to prevent similar situations arising in the future.

How Fraser Dawbarns can help

Our employment law specialists will be happy to advise you on any aspect of your disciplinary procedures.  For individual advice please complete the enquiry form and we’ll be in touch or call any of our offices and ask to speak to someone in the employment team.

How To Contact Us:

To contact a member of our team, you can fill in our online enquiry form, email info@fraserdawbarns.com, or call your nearest office below. If you’d like to speak to a member of our team at one of our offices across Norfolk and Cambridgeshire, visit our offices page.

Wisbech: 01945 461456

March: 01354 602880

King’s Lynn: 01553 666600

Ely: 01353 383483

Downham Market: 01366 383171

This article aims to supply general information, but it is not intended to constitute advice. Every effort is made to ensure that the law referred to is correct at the date of publication and to avoid any statement which may mislead. However, no duty of care is assumed to any person and no liability is accepted for any omission or inaccuracy. Always seek advice specific to your own circumstances. Fraser Dawbarns LLP is always happy to provide such advice.