Claimant v Krispy Kreme UK Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissal was fair. The respondent had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct based on reasonable grounds following a reasonable investigation. The claimant's false completion of audits and aggressive audio message to junior staff constituted gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal. The disciplinary process was reasonable and followed the ACAS Code.
The notice pay claim failed as the tribunal found the claimant was guilty of gross misconduct (falsifying audits and sending intimidating messages to junior staff), which justified summary dismissal without notice.
The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant's race had anything to do with the suspension or investigation. The respondent would have treated a comparator of a different race in the same circumstances identically. The claimant failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination.
The tribunal found that the matters complained of (being accused of drug dealing and racist language, suspension without prior discussion) did not relate to race as required by section 26 Equality Act 2010, and did not have the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.
Facts
The claimant, a Black British Caribbean retail store manager at Krispy Kreme's Bromley store, had persistent performance issues including failing to follow instructions, poor record-keeping, and inappropriate management style. Between October 2022 and September 2023, multiple complaints were made alleging drug dealing and racist language. In October 2023 she sent an aggressive, threatening WhatsApp audio message to junior staff. She was suspended in November 2023, investigated, and ultimately dismissed for gross misconduct in February 2024 following charges including falsifying audit records, breaching health and safety law (Natasha's Law), and making offensive comments.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The unfair dismissal claim failed because the employer had a genuine belief in misconduct based on reasonable grounds following a reasonable investigation, and summary dismissal for gross misconduct (falsifying audits and sending aggressive messages) was within the range of reasonable responses. The race discrimination claims failed as there was no evidence the claimant's race played any part in the decisions to investigate, suspend or dismiss her.
Practical note
A long-serving manager with a previously clean record can still be fairly dismissed for gross misconduct where falsification of health and safety audits and aggressive, intimidating communications with junior staff are established, even if the original suspicion triggering investigation (drug dealing allegations) is not substantiated.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3303029/2024
- Decision date
- 28 February 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Retail Store Manager
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No