Case Studies
A dopey response to an unfunny gag
Published 29 July 2026
The consequences of telling a bad joke that doesn’t get a laugh can be bad enough, but in Jay’s case the reaction was much worse.
The teaching assistant was on a Saturday night out and was a passenger in a car when it was pulled over by police for a drug search.
No drugs were found in the car, and Jay joked to an officer that he was too late because he had taken “the £3,000 worth of coke earlier.”
On the Monday, another teaching assistant who had also been a passenger in the car told a colleague what had happened.
Jay was unexpectedly summoned to the head teacher’s office for a meeting at which a HR advisor was present.
He was asked about the drugs comment, admitted making it and explained it was just a joke.
When quizzed he denied taking drugs, bringing them into school, and agreed to a request for a personal search and one of his car.
The HR advisor searched the car on her own, confirmed nothing was found, but said she could smell cannabis in the vehicle. Jay denied smoking cannabis.
When he contacted our Employee Support Centre for help, he explained what happened next.
He was told because of the amount of drugs he had supposedly taken at the weekend, and the smell of cannabis in the car, he was clearly under the influence of drugs and unfit to work.
Despite Jay being adamant he had not taken any drugs, it was a joke, he had never smoked cannabis, and his offer to take a drug test, he was suspended from work.
Subsequently, Jay, who had worked at the school for three years, attended a fact‑finding meeting as part of the disciplinary investigation.
Surprisingly, his explanation was not accepted, and he was later invited to a disciplinary hearing to face an allegation of being under the influence of drugs at work.
Jay was put in touch with one of our trade union representatives, who would support him with the case, and he was provided with the evidence the school was using to support the allegation.
It included a witness statement from the colleague who had been in the car with Jay, and one from the employee who had reported the incident.
The most concerning statement was from the HR advisor, which referred to the smell of cannabis in the car and claimed that Jay’s appearance, actions, and emotional presentation showed he was under the influence.
Our trade union representative presented the comprehensive response to the allegation on Jay’s behalf at the disciplinary hearing, making it clear the school had no reliable or credible evidence to support such a serious allegation.
He told the hearing Jay consented to a full search of his person and his car, and no drugs were found. Our trade union representative was strong in his assertion it was an unjustified search, as the only “suspicion” was a joke that both Jay and his colleague confirmed was a joke, and which the police themselves treated as a joke, as shown by the fact he was not arrested or cautioned.
He added that the alleged smell of cannabis in the car was unsupported and uncorroborated, coming solely from the HR advisor. It was also pointed out that Jay immediately denied smoking cannabis and offered to take a drug test.
Our trade union representative rubbished the claim Jay was “under the influence” when he was suspended. He used the evidence to show it was the HR advisor’s personal view, and a claim not corroborated by the head teacher who was also present.
The hearing was told any distress or shock shown by Jay would have been a natural reaction to being wrongly accused, not evidence of drug use.
In summing up the case, our trade union representative maintained there was no tangible, objective evidence, no behaviour consistent with intoxication, no physical signs, no test results, and no witness corroboration for the allegation. Adding, the allegation rested on pure speculation and not facts.
Jay was later cleared of the allegation.
