A Wickes manager has been ordered to pay the DIY retailer £3,500 after an employment tribunal ruled her discrimination case was “unreasonable” and had no “objective” chance of success.
Jasmin Unsted was sacked for snorting cocaine at work – a claim she denied, although she did admit to taking the drug the night before her shift.
Ms Unsted then pursued claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, relating to her ADHD.
The tribunal heard that Ms Unsted, a mother of three, was observed to be unusually “quiet” at work following a late night of drinking.
However, after several trips to the toilet, she became her “loud and chatty self” again.
A colleague subsequently discovered white powder on the windowsill of a cubicle that Ms Unsted had used.
Ms Unsted refused a drug test, saying that she had consumed cocaine the previous night but not on company premises. She was subsequently fired by Wickes.
Her claims for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination were ultimately rejected by the employment tribunal.
Ms Unsted must now pay Wickes £3,408 towards their costs in fighting her claim, which totalled £15,173.
The tribunal, held in London, heard that Ms Unsted was employed as a duty manager at Wickes from March 2021.
She was given a final written warning in August 2023 because of unrelated incidents.
In February 2024, operations manager Rebecca Carter noticed that Ms Unsted was behaving differently.
She told the tribunal: “On 10 February 2024, I noticed [Ms Unsted] displaying unusual behaviour.
“Normally loud, bubbly, and highly focused, constantly working and keeping up a fast pace, she was quiet, unfocused, and less interactive with the team.
“She was pacing around the store and made frequent trips to the toilet, more than once an hour.
“These trips were unusual because, although she worked on the ground floor, she repeatedly went upstairs to use the toilet, which drew my attention.”
She asked Ms Unsted if she was ok, and in response she “kind of just shrugged it off and said she would be okay after some caffeine”.
Ms Unsted told the tribunal she had sat against the outside wall of a toilet cubicle and leaned against the wall, closing her eyes in an attempt to “compose and prepare herself for the rest of the shift”.
Ms Carter said: “At around 2pm, I entered the female toilets and saw [Ms Unsted] leaving the far cubicle with a windowsill.
“I said hello and walked past her to use the far cubicle myself.
“[Ms Unsted] then went into the cubicle next to me.
“She was loud and chatty, the opposite of her behaviour in the morning.
“I cannot recall exactly what she was saying, but we both came out of the toilets at the same time.
“[Ms Unsted] didn’t flush, but I didn’t think much of it.
“As I went to wash my hands, she returned to the cubicle I had used, carrying a tissue, and we continued to have a conversation.”
Ms Carter said she found “what appeared to be remnants from a line of cocaine” on the windowsill of the toilet that Ms Unsted had been in, and she reported this to the Wickes employee relations team.
Ms Unsted claimed that these photos had been doctored but the tribunal accepted them as genuine.
A drug testing technician was called in, and she asked them if her drinking and drug taking the night before would result in a positive test. She was told it probably would.
She was also informed that if she refused to take the test it would be seen as a positive result and she would likely be sacked as Wickes has a zero-tolerance approach to alcohol and drugs.
Ms Unsted refused to take the test as her partner told her over the phone that he did not believe they had reasonable grounds for making her do it.
In an investigation meeting a few days later, Ms Unsted said that the night before her shift, she took “one line of cocaine at 21.00 and a bottle of Malibu. Drinking until 3am 70cl bottle. Felt tired and ropey, not hungover. But I didn’t feel like I was 18 anymore”.
Ms Unsted denied taking drugs while on shift, and claimed she was being discriminated against because of her ADHD.
She said “the description given to me of my unusual behaviour was just a list of my ADHD symptoms and what is my normal behaviour”.
Ms Unsted was fired for gross misconduct in May 2024.
Employment Judge Lise Burge said: “Even if the Tribunal had decided that the dismissal was unfair, which we did not, the Tribunal’s view is that [Ms Unsted]’s conduct was culpable and blameworthy.
“She took cocaine the night before her shift.
“Cocaine is illegal and the safety implications of taking drugs and mixing drugs and alcohol is clear in [Wickes]’s Alcohol & Drugs policy.
“Even if the white powder in the toilet was not cocaine belonging to her, and we make no findings on whether it was or was not, it was reasonable for [Wickes] to request a drug test.
“[Ms Unsted] refused to take it as she believed she would have cocaine in her system. She caused the dismissal.”
Her claims for discrimination arising from disability and a failure to make reasonable adjustments were dismissed.
The tribunal concluded that the claims ‘had no reasonable prospects of success’, but Ms Unsted had ADHD and ‘lacked the emotional separation to be able to stand back and view her claim objectively’.
Despite this, she should have realised it was ‘unreasonable’ to continue to pursue her claims after Wickes urged her to take legal advice.
“[Ms Unsted]’s unfair dismissal and disability discrimination complaint objectively had no reasonable prospects of success and she acted unreasonably in continuing to pursue it,” EJ Burge said.
