Her Boss Deliberately Coughed in Her Face Knowing She Had No Immune Protection — Then a Tribunal Awarded Her £26,438

Photo credit: AI-generated image created using ChatGPT. Illustrative only.

Most workplaces have their share of awkward moments, sharp elbows, and the occasional manager who thinks intimidation counts as leadership. But deliberately coughing in someone’s face during the early days of Covid—especially someone you know has no immune protection—crosses a line that shouldn’t need explaining. It isn’t “banter.” It’s a power play, and it’s cruel.

An employment tribunal has now put a price on that kind of conduct, awarding a former employee £26,438.84 after finding she suffered disability-related discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal. The details, reported in the original post, describe a boss whose behavior a judge called “gross,” and a workplace that seemed more interested in circling wagons than owning what happened.

The woman, who wasn’t named, said the incident left her a “nervous wreck” and struggling to trust people. She wasn’t claiming fragility; she was describing what it feels like to realize the person with authority over your paycheck is willing to humiliate you for sport. If you’ve ever had a boss make you feel small, you can understand the gut-drop. This was that—turned up to full volume in a pandemic.

What the tribunal heard about the coughing incident

The claimant worked for Cawdor Cars between 2017 and 2020 as a property manager in a rental arm of the business called Datblygau Davies Developments. She has psoriatic arthritis, an autoimmune condition, and the tribunal heard she was particularly vulnerable during the pandemic because of the medication she had to take. She earned £11 an hour and worked in a company of around 70 employees.

On March 17, 2020, with social distancing recommended by the government, she had asked colleagues to keep a safe distance due to her disability. The tribunal found that as David Kevin Lewis Davies—known as Kevin Davies—passed her in a corridor, he “coughed in her direction deliberately and loudly,” while commenting she was being ridiculous. The judge found the intention was to “ridicule and intimidate” her, and described the conduct as especially appalling given her vulnerability and her request for respectful distancing.

A management style that sounded like bullying, not leadership

Employment Judge Tobias Vincent Ryan didn’t describe a one-off misunderstanding in an otherwise healthy culture. The judgment noted that some staff experienced Mr Davies’ management style as “interfering” and “brusque,” with “crude language” in the mix. The tribunal found he often used insulting terms for people who irritated him, including tenants.

That matters because workplace cases rarely hinge on a single snapshot. Patterns are what courts and tribunals look for: how a leader speaks, how conflict gets handled, whether disrespect is corrected or rewarded. A boss who treats people like disposable parts tends to create a place where the strong get protected and the vulnerable get leaned on.

Disabled workers shouldn’t have to beg for basic respect

It’s easy for healthy people to forget how much “ordinary life” can feel like a negotiation for someone with a serious condition. If you’re immunocompromised, you don’t have the luxury of rolling your eyes at a pandemic or brushing off someone else’s carelessness. You’re doing the math all day long—on risk, exposure, and whether the people around you will take you seriously.

The claimant told WalesOnline that her boss knew her medical condition and knew she had no immune protection because of her medication. In that context, the coughing wasn’t just childish. It communicated, plainly, that her safety and dignity didn’t matter to him, and that he was willing to use fear as a management tool.

How coworkers and managers responded didn’t help

The tribunal found that members of the company’s management team overheard the loud coughing and were aware of the incident at the time. That’s a key detail, because it shifts this from a private clash to a public moment that others witnessed. A decent workplace would treat that as a red-alert moment: address it, document it, protect the employee, and make it clear it won’t happen again.

Instead, the judgment said some witnesses for the firm came across as defensive and not wholly straightforward, including what the judge viewed as unconvincing denials. One witness was seen “smirking or laughing” while giving evidence despite the claimant’s obvious distress. If you’re wondering how a person can feel trapped enough to resign, it’s often not just the initial offense—it’s the way everyone else pretends it didn’t happen.

From complaint to resignation: why the tribunal called it constructive dismissal

After the corridor incident, the claimant complained “vehemently,” the tribunal heard. Less than three months later, she resigned. The tribunal also heard that the year before, Mr Davies had praised her for having a “good handle” on her work and spoke of his trust in her.

But Judge Ryan concluded the firm “engineered her exit” in 2020 and that she resigned at least in part because she was victimised. The judge said her feeling that she was being eased out partly because of her complaints was correct. Constructive dismissal cases are never about a single bad day; they’re about an employer making the job effectively impossible to continue, then acting surprised when the employee finally walks.

The award: £26,438.84 and what it covered

The tribunal awarded the woman £26,438.84 in total. The breakdown included £18,000 in damages for injury to feelings, along with £3,841.94 relating to unfair dismissal. A further £4,596.90 was awarded in interest accumulated since the coughing incident.

Cawdor Cars and Mr Davies were ordered to pay, with the judgment reflecting both the act itself and the wider treatment surrounding her complaint and departure. The report notes the company was approached for comment. Money can’t undo stress or rebuild trust overnight, but it can draw a public line: this behavior has consequences.

A word to the men who sign paychecks

If you manage people—whether it’s a dealership, a small team, or a family business—this is a sober warning. Authority doesn’t just give you the power to direct work; it gives you the power to shape someone’s daily peace. Some men use that stewardship well. Others get sloppy, prideful, or bored, and they start entertaining themselves by pushing people around.

There’s an old temptation, especially in high-stress environments, to justify harshness as “standards” and humiliation as “toughening people up.” But coughing in a vulnerable employee’s face isn’t toughness; it’s a lack of self-control. And in a moral sense, it’s a failure of basic neighbor-love—the kind of decency you’d expect even if nobody ever filed a complaint.

One of the quiet tests of character is how you treat the person who can’t hit you back: the junior employee, the tenant, the worker with a disability, the person who needs accommodations. That’s where leadership shows up or falls apart. This tribunal result didn’t come out of nowhere; it followed a chain of choices that never should’ve been made in the first place.

The older I get, the less impressed I am by the boss who “doesn’t care what anyone thinks.” A man who truly doesn’t care usually ends up costing everyone else—time, health, money, and peace. This case is one more reminder that respect isn’t a soft skill. It’s part of doing the job.