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

Published: 12:21, 1 July 2026 | Updated: 12:25, 1 July 2026 A carer who invited a lonely, disabled patient to join his family's New Year's Day dinner was sacked for the 'act of kindness', an employment tribunal heard. Paul McPhail, a support worker, extended the invitation after learning the patient's family would not be able to host him and he would otherwise spend the day alone at home. The Scottish worker described the patient as being 'agitated' by the situation, adding he gained consent from the patient's brother to be the McPhail family's guest.  The tribunal heard Mr McPhail was fired by the Lifeways Group for 'unprofessional' conduct and was accused of developing a personal relationship with the patient.  Despite arguing he had simply been doing a 'good thing', Mr McPhail's claim for unfair dismissal was rejected by an employment tribunal in Glasgow. Mr McPhail worked for the Lifeways Group from August 2018 until his sacking in April 2025, providing around-the-clock care in the patient's home. He shared caring duties of the patient, who cannot be named for legal reasons, with two other workers.  The patient's brother's welfare guardianship had ended at the time of the incident, the tribunal heard.  In February 2025, a social worker informed Mr McPhail's deputy line manager, Elizabeth McKnight, about the invitation on New Year's Day.  A carer who invited a lonely, disabled patient to join his family's New Year's Day dinner was sacked, a tribunal heard (stock photo) Mr McPhail was subsequently invited to an investigation meeting in March.  It is understood the dismissed worker took the patient to his home, failed to document the visit on New Year's Day, and had not declared a conflict of interest to his professional relationship. In the meeting, Mr McPhail said: 'I wrote down that he came to my house and had a great New Year's dinner with me and my family. 'I even have pictures of [the service user] at mine during it with my family and sent them to [the service user's] brother, he was very pleased with it. 'Was me, the wife, my daughter, the wean and dog. [The service user] had a great time, even asked when he is coming back. 'I jokingly said aye maybe next year. It was a lovely gesture I felt. Social work did compliment the service. 'Even you complimented me. Last thing I want to do is cause or do anything wrong.'  The incident was then escalated to a disciplinary meeting, which took place in April. At the meeting, Mr McPhail described the service as 'going through a turbulent time', with staff leaving and the death of a 'long-standing staff member'.  He continued: 'The place was in turmoil. The [service user's] family was upset with prior staff and were concerned for his welfare. '[He] was self-harming, agitated and asking for [the member of staff who died]. 'The family then stated that the [service user] couldn't go home with them for New Year's Day, so I suggested to family that I could take him to my home for New Year's Day and they approved this. 'I then asked my wife if it would be ok, and she said yes it would be lovely. Upon my return to the service, I told Lizzie McKnight that I would be taking him home for that day and she said that would be nice. I told Amir also and no-one said anything about it. 'I feel I was doing a good thing. I did cross a boundary, but I always had the best interests of the [service user] in mind.' Mr McPhail was dismissed for gross misconduct after the meeting. The decision was confirmed in a letter, which was sent in May.  The letter read: 'Suggesting and agreeing to take [the service user] to your home with your family members present is a breach of boundaries and you did so fully aware of the identified risks associated with [the service user]. 'Not only did you put [the service user] at risk, but you also put yourself and your family members at risk. 'We expect all Lifeways employees to follow and adhere to the company's policies and procedures. 'It is further noted that [the service user's] brother is not welfare guardian and currently the local authority holds guardianship. 'As an employee of Lifeways, you have responsibility to inform management of this conflict of interest which you failed to do. 'I also find your actions demonstrate an abuse of power and authority, and it is evident through the disciplinary hearing that you do not understand the severity of your actions. 'You had no authority or power to make this decision in relation to [the service user] and neither did the brother. 'You failed to check this with management. I do not believe in the balance of probability that you "ran this past" the deputy manager and that she said to you "that will be nice". 'I find that management were not aware of what took place on the 1st of January 2025 until it was raised as a concern from social work.' Employment Judge Muriel Robison ruled Mr McPhail had not been unfairly dismissed. She said: '[Mr McPhail's] representatives asked the Tribunal to find that [he] was a professional and considered carer in a 24/7 service in the service users home which I have no reason to doubt. 'I fully understand why [he] believes he has been harshly treated for what he says was 'an act of kindness' in difficult circumstances at work, and why he does not think it was sufficiently serious to justify his dismissal. 'However, as he will now be fully aware, there is a range of reasonable responses open to an employer and even if this Tribunal considers that dismissal was too harsh in the particular circumstances, the particular context in which the respondent operates means that what might be reasonable in one context is not in another. 'I could not therefore say that dismissal in the particular circumstances of this case was unfair because dismissal for gross misconduct was within range of reasonable responses open to the respondent. The claim must therefore be dismissed.' The Lifeways Group have been contacted for comment.   The comments below have not been moderated. The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline. By posting your comment you agree to our house rules. Do you want to automatically post your MailOnline comments to your Facebook Timeline? Your comment will be posted to MailOnline as usual. Do you want to automatically post your MailOnline comments to your Facebook Timeline? Your comment will be posted to MailOnline as usual We will automatically post your comment and a link to the news story to your Facebook timeline at the same time it is posted on MailOnline. To do this we will link your MailOnline account with your Facebook account. We’ll ask you to confirm this for your first post to Facebook. You can choose on each post whether you would like it to be posted to Facebook. Your details from Facebook will be used to provide you with tailored content, marketing and ads in line with our Privacy Policy.