Regional Sales Manager unfairly dismissed for using word 'spastic' in historical context
A Regional Sales Manager with three years' service was unfairly dismissed after using the word 'spastic' in a conversation about historical language. The tribunal awarded £7,710.31 for procedural failures including a pre-signed dismissal letter.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after using the word 'spastic' in a conversation about historical language.
- The dismissing officer did not conduct the disciplinary hearing and presented a pre-signed dismissal letter.
- The respondent failed to investigate the context of the claimant's remark before deciding to dismiss.
- The claimant was denied a proper appeal as the dismissing officer also decided the appeal.
- The respondent breached the ACAS Code of Practice in multiple respects.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as Commercial Sales Manager.
-
Role change
Claimant's role changed to Regional Sales Manager.
-
Incident
Claimant used the word 'spastic' in conversation with colleague Michael Rollinson.
-
Meeting of concern
Claimant met with Mr Pope to discuss the incident.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Hearing conducted by Ms Shaw; claimant denied access to witness statements.
-
Dismissal
Claimant summarily dismissed by Mr Thorpe with immediate effect.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed dismissal; appeal not properly considered.
-
Liability hearing
Tribunal found dismissal unfair.
-
Remedy hearing
Tribunal awarded compensation.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's dismissal for gross misconduct was fair, focusing on whether the employer followed a fair procedure and whether dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
The outcome
The tribunal decided the dismissal was unfair. Key reasons included: the dismissing officer (Mr Thorpe) did not attend the disciplinary hearing; he presented a pre-signed dismissal letter; the employer failed to investigate the context of the remark; and the appeal was not independent. Compensation was reduced due to the claimant's limited service and the possibility that a fair process might still have led to dismissal.
- Basic award: £5,712.00
- Compensatory award: £1,998.31
- Total: £7,710.31
Lessons & takeaways
- The person who decides to dismiss should normally conduct or attend the disciplinary hearing to hear the evidence first-hand.
- A dismissal letter should not be pre-signed before the hearing takes place.
- Employers should investigate the context and intent behind an employee's words before deciding that gross misconduct has occurred.
- Appeals should be heard by someone independent of the original decision-maker to ensure fairness.
- Small employers are still expected to follow basic procedural fairness, though the standard may be slightly adjusted.
This case shows how a failure to follow basic procedural steps can turn a potentially fair dismissal into an unfair one. The Regional Sales Manager was dismissed for gross misconduct after using the word 'spastic' in a conversation about historical language. While the employer was understandably concerned about disability discrimination, the way it handled the process was fundamentally flawed.
What went wrong
The dismissing director, Mr Thorpe, did not attend the disciplinary hearing. Instead, he relied on a report from the HR consultant who conducted it. He then presented a dismissal letter that had been written and signed before the hearing even took place. The employer also failed to investigate the context of the remark — the claimant was discussing how language had changed over time, not targeting anyone. The appeal was heard by the same Mr Thorpe, making it a rubber-stamp exercise.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have ensured Mr Thorpe attended the hearing or at least reviewed the evidence thoroughly before deciding. It should have considered the context of the remark and the claimant's clean disciplinary record. A proper appeal by an independent person might have caught these errors internally.
Why this matters
For employees, this case reinforces that even when conduct is potentially serious, the employer must follow a fair process. The ACAS Code of Practice sets out minimum standards, and breaching them can lead to compensation uplifts. For employers, it is a reminder that shortcuts in procedure — like pre-signing letters or combining decision-maker and appeal roles — will almost certainly be fatal to a fair dismissal defence.
Similar cases
Car valet dismissed for abusive language: procedural unfairness but no compensation awarded
A car valet with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after using foul language towards a colleague, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because his conduct wholly caused his dismissal.
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.
Dismissed for mishearing an instruction: a conduct case that failed to consider the possibility of misunderstanding
A purge and relight engineer with five years' service was unfairly dismissed after a dispute over whether he was told to return to a work site. The tribunal found the employer failed to consider the possibility of miscommunication and did not interview a key witness.
Apprentice carpenter dismissed for taking unauthorised holiday: no investigation or hearing
An apprentice carpenter was unfairly dismissed after taking a week's holiday despite his employer's refusal. The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair and awarded £918.13, including unlawful deduction claims.