David Coote: A look at the Premier League referee's dismissal

On Monday 9 December 2024 it was announced that the employment of premier league referee David Coote had been terminated with immediate effect, following a thorough investigation into his conduct. A statement released by the Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) confirmed that Mr Coote’s actions were found to be in serious breach of the provisions of his employment contract, with his position deemed untenable.

On 11 November 2024, an unverified video emerged of David Coote seemingly making derogatory comments about Liverpool FC and in particular their former manager Jurgen Klopp. The video sparked controversy amongst social media users and on 12 November 2024 the Football Association (FA), the governing body of association football in England, announced it would investigate. Coote was also suspended by PGMOL while they carried out their own investigation into the incident.

On 13 November 2024, images were circulated online which appeared to show David Coote snorting a white powder while he was in Germany officiating as part of the Euro 2024 international football competition. Coote was later suspended by the Union of European Football Association (UEFA), European football’s governing body. PGMOL also confirmed that they were aware of these images and that further allegations of misconduct were being taken “very seriously”.

On 27 November 2024, the FA confirmed that a further investigation would take place into allegations that Coote had discussed giving a yellow card before a match had taken place between Leeds and West Brom in 2019. Coote denied these claims and branded them “false and defamatory”.

What options does David Coote have?

While we now know the outcome of PGMOL’s investigation and their decision, they have confirmed that Coote has a right to appeal the decision to terminate his employment. This is a requirement of the Acas Code of Practice in cases where an employee is dismissed for misconduct. Whilst a failure to offer the right to appeal does not always mean the dismissal process will be unfair, employment tribunals do have to take this failure into account and so employers run a high risk of an adverse unfair dismissal finding against them in such circumstances.

Any appeal lodged by Mr Coote will have to be dealt with impartially by someone who has not previously been involved in the disciplinary process. Normally the person appointed to hear the appeal should be more senior than the person who took the decision to dismiss. Workers (which includes employees) have a statutory right to be accompanied at appeal hearings by either a trade union representative or a fellow worker.

It remains to be seen whether David Coote will opt to appeal his dismissal, or whether he will choose to accept the penalty imposed. Either way he could consider pursuing legal proceedings, the most likely route being an unfair dismissal claim in an employment tribunal (although any failure to exercise his right of appeal could lead to compensation being reduced by up to 25% should his claim succeed).

Expressing an opinion – is it a sackable offence?

The Employment Rights Act 1996 protects employees from being unfairly dismissed for expressing political views. Similarly, the Equality Act 2010 affords employees protection against discrimination on grounds of philosophical belief, although stringent requirements have to be met for a belief to amount to a philosophical belief. McClung v Doosan Babcock Ltd ruled that a philosophical belief does not extend to supporting a football team. There is nothing to suggest that Mr Coote held a protected philosophical belief.

Employees also have a right to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights which employment tribunals must take into account when considering relevant claims, including for unfair dismissal. However, this is not an absolute right and can be restricted, for example in order to protect the rights and reputation of others (such as the employer) and provided that the restriction is proportionate.

To defend an unfair dismissal claim, an employer must have a fair reason for dismissal. One potentially fair reason for dismissal is an employee’s conduct, and it is advisable for employers to expressly set out in their employment contract and disciplinary rules what particular acts or omissions may amount to gross misconduct. PGMOL likely found, after conducting a thorough investigation, that the acts of David Coote were reasonably seen to have brought the company into disrepute and so amounted to gross misconduct. Officials at the top level of English football are often scrutinised on a weekly basis, and the recent events are likely to increase public suspicion around the impartiality of referees who continue to officiate.

An employer may also look to rely on “some other substantial reason” (“SOSR”) as a potentially fair reason for an employee’s dismissal. Whilst there is no definitive answer as to what constitutes SOSR, tribunals have looked at both pressure from third parties and reputational risk as a potential reason before. There is, however, a high hurdle for employers to cross in order to succeed in defending an unfair dismissal by relying on these reasons, and an employer is likely to seek to rely on conduct as the reason for dismissal where it can demonstrate a fundamental breach of contract on the part of the employee.

Key takeaways

Employers need to conduct a full and proper investigation into allegations of misconduct. Investigation is an important element of the disciplinary process where misconduct is suspected, and one that employers should not look to skim over. Each case will turn on its own facts and any investigation will need to be tailored, however the following steps are a useful guide as to what can reasonably be expected of an employer in these circumstances:

• Act promptly in response to any concerns which come to light;
• Establish the key facts surrounding the case, which can include investigatory meetings with the employee and any relevant witnesses;
• If you decide there is a disciplinary case to answer, inform the employee of this and invite them to a formal disciplinary meeting (with the right to be accompanied);
• Make a decision on any appropriate action to be taken following the meeting, communicating this to the employee without delay; and
• Provide the employee with the right to appeal the decision made against them.

Another important factor highlighted in this case is employee wellbeing, which PGMOL acknowledge, stating that “Supporting David Coote continues to be important to us and we remain committed to his welfare”.

For information on how we can advise you on conducting investigations into alleged misconduct and help ensure that proper processes are followed, please contact a member of our Employment team or submit an enquiry form, below.