Kitchen porter dismissed after marijuana smell: race discrimination claim partly succeeds

This case shows how a single discriminatory comment can taint an otherwise fair disciplinary process. The kitchen porter, who had worked for Mildreds Ltd for three years, was dismissed after managers smelled marijuana from his bike bag and he refused to allow a search. The tribunal accepted that the employer had reasonable grounds to suspect misconduct and that dismissal was a fair outcome for gross misconduct.

However, one of the managers had also alleged that the claimant was 'intoxicated' at work. The tribunal found that this assumption was not based on any observed behaviour but on a stereotypical link between Afro-Caribbean people and cannabis use. That comment amounted to direct race discrimination, even though the dismissal itself was fair.

What the employer could have done differently

The employer's handling of the drug incident was largely reasonable: suspension, investigation, and a disciplinary hearing. But the intoxication allegation was unnecessary and unsupported. If the manager had simply reported the smell and the refusal to be searched, the discrimination claim would likely have failed. Employers should train managers to avoid making assumptions based on race or ethnicity, especially in high-stakes situations like misconduct allegations.

Why this matters for similar claims

This case is a reminder that a successful unfair dismissal claim is not the only route to compensation. Even where a dismissal is fair, a separate discrimination claim can succeed if the employer's treatment of the employee during the process was tainted by a protected characteristic. The award of £3,000 for injury to feelings reflects the tribunal's view that the discrimination was a single incident, not part of a wider pattern. For employees, it shows the importance of identifying and raising all potential claims, even when the main complaint (unfair dismissal) does not succeed.