Two teaching assistants dismissed after cocaine incident at school: one unfair but no compensation, other wins disability claim
A teaching assistant was unfairly dismissed over a cocaine incident at a special needs school, but received no compensation because she would have been sacked anyway. A second assistant won a disability discrimination claim after her mother was refused as a companion at her disciplinary hearing.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #gross-misconduct
- #cocaine-at-school
- #disability-discrimination
- #reasonable-adjustments
- #polkey-100
- #contributory-conduct-100
Key facts
- Miss Mason admitted to having cocaine in her car and asked Miss Crew to remove it.
- Miss Crew was dismissed for gross misconduct related to drug discussions and collusion.
- The tribunal found that Miss Crew was procedurally unfairly dismissed but would have been fairly dismissed anyway (100% Polkey reduction).
- The tribunal upheld Miss Mason's claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments by refusing her mother as a companion at the disciplinary hearing.
- Miss Mason's claim for harassment related to the refusal of her mother as a companion was also upheld.
- All other claims, including discrimination arising from disability, were dismissed.
Timeline
-
Respondent concedes knowledge of Miss Mason's disability
The Respondent accepted that it knew Miss Mason was disabled due to anxiety and depression from this date.
-
Incident day: drugs delivered to school
Miss Mason's ex-boyfriend delivered a purse containing cocaine to the school car park. Miss Mason was overheard discussing drugs with Miss Crew. Later, Miss Mason admitted to having cocaine in her car and asked Miss Crew to remove it.
-
Investigation interviews
Miss Mason and Miss Crew were interviewed separately as part of the investigation into the drug incident.
-
Miss Mason's disciplinary hearing and dismissal
Miss Mason attended a disciplinary hearing where her mother was refused as a companion. She was dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Miss Crew's dismissal
Miss Crew was dismissed for gross misconduct related to discussing drugs and colluding to remove drugs from Miss Mason's car.
-
Miss Crew lodges appeal
Miss Crew appealed her dismissal, arguing lack of evidence and breach of confidentiality.
-
Miss Mason lodges appeal
Miss Mason sent an email with heads of appeal, later supplemented by her representative.
-
Appeal decisions
Mr Ribbons rejected both appeals, finding the dismissals were within the range of reasonable responses.
-
Tribunal hearing begins
The employment tribunal hearing took place over seven days in March 2023.
-
Judgment issued
The tribunal found Miss Crew was procedurally unfairly dismissed but with 100% Polkey reduction and contributory fault. Miss Mason's reasonable adjustment and harassment claims succeeded.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether Miss Crew was unfairly dismissed for gross misconduct relating to drugs, and whether Miss Mason was discriminated against because of her disability when her employer refused to allow her mother to accompany her at a disciplinary hearing.
The outcome
The tribunal found that Miss Crew was procedurally unfairly dismissed because the investigation was flawed. However, it concluded that she would have been fairly dismissed in any event (100% Polkey reduction) and that her own conduct contributed 100% to her dismissal, so she received no compensation.
Miss Mason succeeded in her claims that the school failed to make reasonable adjustments and harassed her by refusing her mother as a companion at her disciplinary hearing. The tribunal found that this refusal created a more intimidating environment for her, given her anxiety and depression. The amount of compensation for injury to feelings will be decided at a later hearing.
All other claims, including discrimination arising from disability and unfair dismissal for Miss Mason, were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should consider reasonable adjustments for disabled employees during disciplinary proceedings, such as allowing a chosen companion if it reduces anxiety.
- Refusing a reasonable request for a companion without good reason can amount to harassment under the Equality Act 2010.
- Even if a dismissal is procedurally unfair, a tribunal may award no compensation if it finds the employee would have been dismissed anyway and contributed to their own dismissal.
- A flawed investigation does not automatically make a dismissal unfair if the employer genuinely believed in the employee's guilt and had reasonable grounds.
This case involves two teaching assistants at a special needs school in Truro, both dismissed after a cocaine incident on school premises. The facts highlight how procedural errors can lead to a finding of unfair dismissal, yet still result in no compensation when the employee's own conduct is the real cause of their dismissal.
What happened
In July 2021, a purse containing cocaine was delivered to the school car park. One teaching assistant, Miss Mason, admitted to having the drugs in her car and asked a colleague, Miss Crew, to remove them. Both were dismissed for gross misconduct after a disciplinary process. Miss Mason, who suffered from anxiety and depression, asked for her mother to accompany her at the hearing, but the school refused. The tribunal found this refusal was a failure to make reasonable adjustments and amounted to harassment.
Why Miss Crew got nothing
Miss Crew argued that the investigation was flawed and that she was not given a fair opportunity to respond. The tribunal agreed that the process was procedurally unfair. However, it also found that the school genuinely believed she had colluded to remove drugs from the car, and that any reasonable employer would have dismissed her. Applying a 100% Polkey reduction, the tribunal decided she would have been dismissed anyway. It also found she contributed 100% to her dismissal through her own blameworthy conduct. As a result, she received no compensation.
The reasonable adjustment point
Miss Mason's success on the reasonable adjustment and harassment claims is a reminder that employers must consider the specific needs of disabled employees during disciplinary processes. The school knew she suffered from anxiety and depression, yet refused her request for her mother to attend as a companion. The tribunal found this created a more intimidating environment, which was harassment. The amount of compensation for injury to feelings will be determined at a later hearing.
What this means for similar cases
For employees, this case shows that even if you win on unfair dismissal, you may receive nothing if your own conduct was serious. For employers, it underscores the importance of considering reasonable adjustments for disabled staff, even in disciplinary settings. Refusing a reasonable request without good reason can lead to a discrimination claim that may succeed even if the underlying dismissal was fair.
Similar cases
Support worker dismissed for swearing at service user: disability discrimination claim fails
A support worker with 2.5 months' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after swearing at a person they supported. The tribunal rejected claims of disability discrimination because the employer did not know of his undiagnosed ADHD.
Autistic customer assistant unfairly dismissed for leaning on colleague
A customer assistant with autism was unfairly dismissed by Marks and Spencer after leaning on a colleague, as the tribunal found the employer failed to consider his condition or obtain updated medical reports.
Head of PE dismissed for allowing pupil to use another child's inhaler: dismissal fair
A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a Head of PE who authorised the use of another pupil's inhaler for a child with severe allergies during an off-site lesson. All disability discrimination claims also failed.
Clinically extremely vulnerable manager dismissed for refusing to return to unsafe office: unfair dismissal and disability discrimination
A branch manager with 12 years' service who was clinically extremely vulnerable to COVID-19 was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against after his employer demanded he return to an office he considered unsafe. The tribunal found the disciplinary process was a sham.