Unfair dismissal over a discriminatory comment: when the investigation falls short
A mobile technician with 13 years' service was unfairly dismissed after describing a colleague as a 'female Eastern European woman' who 'always makes mistakes'. The tribunal found the employer's investigation was inadequate.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #conduct-dismissal
- #discriminatory-comment
- #inadequate-investigation
- #contributory-conduct
- #customer-complaint
Key facts
- Mr Myles was employed as a Mobile Heavy Goods Vehicle Technician from 7 January 2008.
- On 1 April 2021, Mr Myles made a comment to a customer describing a colleague as a 'female Eastern European woman' who 'always makes mistakes'.
- The customer complained, and Mr Myles was dismissed following a disciplinary hearing on 10 May 2021.
- The dismissal was based on a belief that Mr Myles was hostile and discriminatory towards Eastern European women.
- The tribunal found that the investigation was inadequate because Mr Myles was not asked about his alleged hostility or given a chance to respond to that charge.
- The tribunal concluded the dismissal was unfair but applied a 15% reduction for contributory conduct due to Mr Myles' inappropriate comment.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Mr Myles began employment with a predecessor organization.
-
Transferred to respondent
Mr Myles transferred to Enterprise Rent a Car UK Ltd.
-
Positive appraisal
Mr Myles received a positive appraisal noting his good attitude.
-
Incident with customer
Mr Myles attended a National Trust property and made a comment about a colleague being a 'female Eastern European woman' who 'always makes mistakes'.
-
Customer complaint by phone
The customer telephoned the respondent to complain about Mr Myles' behaviour.
-
Written customer complaint
The customer sent a written complaint via email.
-
Investigation meeting
Mr Myles attended an investigation meeting and apologised for offending the customer.
-
Invitation to disciplinary hearing
Mr Myles was invited to a disciplinary hearing regarding derogatory comments.
-
Disciplinary hearing
The hearing was chaired by Mr Scott; Mr Myles was accompanied by a trade union representative.
-
Appeal hearing
Mr Myles appealed his dismissal, but the appeal was not upheld.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether Enterprise Rent a Car UK Ltd had reasonable grounds to believe the claimant was hostile and discriminatory, and whether it carried out a reasonable investigation before dismissing him for conduct.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claimant's unfair dismissal claim, finding that the investigation was inadequate. The employer did not ask the claimant about his alleged hostility or give him an opportunity to respond to that specific charge.
A 15% reduction was applied for contributory conduct because the claimant's inappropriate comment contributed to his dismissal. No compensation figures were specified in the judgment.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must investigate the specific allegation of hostility or discriminatory mindset, not just the comment itself, before dismissing for conduct.
- A single inappropriate comment, while serious, does not automatically justify dismissal without a thorough investigation into the employee's overall behaviour and attitude.
- Employees with long service and a clean record are entitled to a more rigorous process before being dismissed for conduct.
- Apologising for offending a customer does not equate to admitting a discriminatory mindset; employers should explore the context and intent behind the comment.
What this case shows
A single careless comment cost a long-serving employee his job, but the tribunal found the employer's response was too hasty. The claimant, a mobile HGV technician with 13 years' service, made a remark to a customer describing a colleague as a 'female Eastern European woman' who 'always makes mistakes'. The customer complained, and within weeks the claimant was dismissed for conduct.
However, the tribunal found that Enterprise Rent a Car UK Ltd had not properly investigated whether the claimant was genuinely hostile or discriminatory. The investigation focused on the comment itself but did not ask the claimant about his alleged hostility or give him a chance to respond to that charge. The employer's decision to dismiss was based on an assumption that the comment reflected a deep-seated prejudice, without exploring the context or the claimant's overall record.
What could have been done differently
The employer could have conducted a more thorough investigation. This might have included asking the claimant about his attitude towards Eastern European colleagues, checking his previous conduct record (which was positive), and considering whether the comment was an isolated lapse rather than evidence of a discriminatory mindset. A reasonable investigation would have given the claimant a fair opportunity to explain his remark and demonstrate that it was not indicative of hostility.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that even in conduct dismissals, employers must follow a fair process. The tribunal applied the well-known 'Burchell' test, which requires the employer to have a genuine belief, based on reasonable grounds, after a reasonable investigation. Here, the investigation was too narrow. The claimant's 13 years of service and positive appraisal should have prompted a more careful approach. The 15% reduction for contributory conduct reflects that the claimant's own behaviour played a part, but the core failing was the employer's inadequate process.
Similar cases
Mailman with 32 years' service unfairly dismissed over duplicate barcode incident
A mailman with 32 years of unblemished service was unfairly dismissed by Royal Mail after a customer complaint about a duplicate barcode. The tribunal found the investigation and disciplinary process flawed, and reduced compensation by 20% for his own conduct.
Support worker dismissed over raised voice: unfair dismissal due to flawed investigation
A support worker who raised her voice at a vulnerable adult was unfairly dismissed after her employer relied on undisclosed witness statements. The tribunal awarded £12,108, reduced by a third for her own conduct.
HGV driver dismissed on the spot for refusing to drive without a rest break: unfair dismissal
An HGV driver who refused to drive to Stafford because he needed an 11-hour rest break was summarily dismissed without any investigation. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair and awarded £2,179.42, reduced by 50% for the driver's contributory conduct.
Deputy manager dismissed over CQC failings: unfair dismissal but 20% contributory fault
A deputy manager with five years' service was unfairly dismissed after a CQC report highlighted failures at her care home. The tribunal found the investigation unreasonable but reduced her award by 20% for her own poor record-keeping.