Chargehand wins race discrimination claim over suspension and withheld evidence
A black chargehand was suspended for alleged drug-taking four months before his white colleagues, and the council withheld key documents. The tribunal struck out the respondent's case and awarded £21,688.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #race-discrimination
- #suspension
- #withholding-evidence
- #strike-out
- #injury-to-feelings
- #vento-bands
Key facts
- The claimant was suspended on 12 April 2019 for alleged drug-taking and threats.
- Two white colleagues accused of the same drug-taking were suspended four months later.
- The respondent withheld key documents, including longer signed witness statements, until the resumed hearing.
- The respondent's solicitor knowingly misled the tribunal about disclosure.
- The tribunal struck out the respondent's response due to unreasonable conduct making a fair trial impossible.
- The claimant succeeded on all remaining claims of direct race discrimination.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began work as a chargehand in the street cleansing department.
-
Alleged drug-taking incident
Claimant and two white colleagues allegedly took drugs while on duty.
-
Claimant suspended
Claimant was suspended pending investigation into drug-taking and threats.
-
White colleagues suspended
LS and TON were suspended around four months after the claimant.
-
Claimant dismissed
Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Claim presented
Claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal and race discrimination.
-
First hearing started
Four-day final hearing began; claimant withdrew unfair dismissal claim.
-
Hearing adjourned
Hearing adjourned due to respondent's failure to disclose documents.
-
Resumed hearing started
Resumed hearing; further undisclosed documents revealed on last day.
-
Response struck out
Tribunal struck out respondent's response and found discrimination proved.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the council's decision to suspend the claimant earlier than his white colleagues, and its failure to disclose relevant documents during the disciplinary process, amounted to direct race discrimination.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the Royal Borough of Greenwich directly discriminated against the claimant on grounds of race.
Key reasons:
- The claimant was suspended on 12 April 2019 for alleged drug-taking, while two white colleagues accused of the same conduct were not suspended until four months later.
- The council withheld key documents, including longer signed witness statements, and its solicitor knowingly misled the tribunal about disclosure.
- The council's conduct made a fair trial impossible, leading to its response being struck out.
Compensation:
- Total award: £21,688.92
- No breakdown provided in the structured facts.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are disciplined or suspended earlier than colleagues for the same alleged conduct, and you are from a different racial group, this may indicate discrimination.
- Employers must disclose all relevant documents to employees during disciplinary processes; withholding evidence can lead to a finding of discrimination and procedural sanctions.
- If an employer's conduct during tribunal proceedings is unreasonable and prevents a fair trial, the tribunal can strike out their response and decide the case in your favour.
- Keep a record of any differences in how you are treated compared to colleagues in similar situations, as this can be key evidence in a discrimination claim.
What this case shows
This case highlights how differences in treatment during a disciplinary process can form the basis of a race discrimination claim. The claimant, a black chargehand, was suspended for alleged drug-taking in April 2019. Two white colleagues accused of the same conduct on the same occasion were not suspended until four months later. The tribunal found this disparity to be direct race discrimination.
The council also withheld key documents from the claimant during the disciplinary process and even during the tribunal hearing. Its solicitor knowingly misled the tribunal about disclosure. When the truth emerged, the tribunal struck out the council's response, meaning the discrimination claim was effectively admitted.
What the council could have done differently
The council could have avoided this outcome by suspending all three employees at the same time, or by having a clear, consistent policy for suspension decisions. It should also have disclosed all relevant documents to the claimant from the start, rather than withholding them and then trying to cover up the failure. Honest and transparent disclosure is a fundamental part of fair process.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that tribunals take procedural fairness seriously. When an employer's conduct is so unreasonable that it makes a fair trial impossible, the tribunal can strike out the employer's case. For employees, it shows that differences in how you are treated compared to colleagues of a different race can be powerful evidence of discrimination. The award of £21,688 reflects the injury to feelings caused by the discrimination.
Similar cases
Former employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of two years' service
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Kings College London was struck out because they did not have the required two years' service. Their discrimination claims were dismissed after a hearing.
Labourer's race discrimination claim survives strike-out bid despite late witness statement
A construction labourer who alleges he was subjected to monkey chants and racist abuse can proceed with his claim after the tribunal refused to strike it out, despite his late compliance with orders.
Site Manager with 8 months' service loses unfair dismissal claim
A site manager who was dismissed after just eight months had his unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of qualifying service. His race discrimination claims were allowed to proceed but subject to a £100 deposit order.
Server's unfair dismissal claim struck out after failing to engage with tribunal
A restaurant server with less than two years' service had his unfair dismissal claim struck out after he failed to attend hearings or comply with tribunal orders. The tribunal also dismissed his race discrimination claim due to unreasonable conduct.