• Send us a message

    Fill in our form and we'll get back to you as soon as possible

    Please enter name
    Please enter your telephone number
    Please enter your email address
    Please let us know which of offices would most convenient for you?
    Please enter the details of your enquiry
    Please enter the verification code
    Send us a message
  • Services for you
  • Services for business

Even Highly Offensive Workplace Banter May Not Amount to Harassment

Irreverent and foul-mouthed banter is commonplace in some working environments and does not necessarily amount to harassment or victimisation. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in rejecting a compensation claim brought by a salesman who gave as good as he got amidst a culture of teasing and jibing (Evans v Xactly Corporation Limited).

The salesman worked for a company for less than a year before his dismissal. He launched ET proceedings, claiming to have suffered race and disability discrimination, victimisation and harassment. He said that workmates had made frequent and offensive reference to his weight and close connections to the traveller community, one of them having referred to him as a 'fat ginger pikey'.

In dismissing his claim, however, the ET noted that banter is not unusual amongst sales personnel working under pressure to meet targets. He had apparently been comfortable with the office culture, had been an active participant in inappropriate comments and behaviour and had not been singled out for bad treatment.

He had not complained about name-calling until his performance came under review – he had not made a single sale during his time with the company. After attempts at negotiating an exit package failed, he had been dismissed because his relationship with his employer had irretrievably broken down.

In rejecting his challenge to the ET's decision, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) noted that, at first blush, it might appear surprising that referring to a colleague in such derogatory terms did not amount to harassment. However, the ET had considered the facts extremely carefully and, in the final analysis, it was easy to see why it reached the conclusions it did.

The salesman suffered from diabetes, which the company accepted amounted to a disability, and there was evidence that his weight was associated with his condition. However, the ET found that he was not considered overweight by colleagues and that the word 'fat' had been used as a generic unflattering adjective, rather than as a specific reference to his weight. The EAT could find no fault in that conclusion.

The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.