Emergency medical technician dismissed for using racist language: 15 years' service didn't save her job
A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of an EMT with 15 years' service who used the n-word about a black colleague on two occasions, finding the employer's investigation and decision were within the range of reasonable responses.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #racist-language
- #gross-misconduct
- #n-word
- #previous-warning
- #investigation-flaws
- #acas-code
Key facts
- The claimant used the n-word in reference to a black colleague in July 2020 and was warned not to use it again.
- In December 2020, the claimant again used the n-word about the same colleague while speaking to another colleague.
- The respondent investigated and held a disciplinary hearing; the claimant did not attend but was represented by her union rep.
- The dismissing officer found the claimant had used the n-word on two occasions and dismissed her for gross misconduct.
- The claimant did not appeal the dismissal.
Timeline
-
First use of n-word
The claimant used the n-word in reference to Ms Greaves in the ambulance station car park. Managers spoke to her informally.
-
Second use of n-word
The claimant used the n-word about Ms Greaves while speaking to colleague Laura Herbert in an ambulance cab.
-
Allegation reported
Laura Herbert emailed manager Sara-Jane Jones-Roberts reporting the December incident.
-
Meeting with claimant
Operations Manager Malcolm Saunders met the claimant; she did not deny using the word but could not recall.
-
Claimant sends apology email
The claimant emailed an apology, saying she could not recall but apologised if she used the word.
-
First investigatory interview
Investigating Officer James Stone interviewed the claimant; she said the word might have slipped out.
-
Claimant goes on sick leave
The claimant began long-term sickness absence due to physical and mental health issues.
-
Claimant agrees to proceed in absence
The claimant emailed her union rep to continue the disciplinary hearing in her absence.
-
Disciplinary hearing and dismissal
The disciplinary hearing took place; the claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
The legal issue
Whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the employee for gross misconduct after she used racist language about a colleague, and whether the investigation and disciplinary process were fair.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim of unfair dismissal.
- The employer had a genuine belief, based on a reasonable investigation, that the claimant used the n-word on two occasions.
- The claimant had been warned after the first incident in July 2020 but used the word again in December 2020.
- The disciplinary hearing proceeded in the claimant's absence at her own request, and she did not appeal the decision.
- Although the investigation had some flaws (e.g., not interviewing a key witness), the tribunal held that the employer's decision fell within the range of reasonable responses.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- A previous warning for similar misconduct makes it much harder to argue that dismissal was too harsh.
- Choosing not to attend a disciplinary hearing or appeal can weaken your case, even if you have a representative.
- Even long-serving employees can be fairly dismissed for gross misconduct if the employer follows a reasonable process.
- Using racist language in the workplace, even in private conversations, is likely to be treated as gross misconduct.
- A tribunal will not substitute its own view for the employer's decision if the employer acted reasonably, even if the investigation was not perfect.
What this case shows
This case demonstrates that even an employee with 15 years' unblemished service can lose their job for using racist language, and that a tribunal will not intervene if the employer's decision was reasonable. The claimant, an emergency medical technician, used the n-word about a black colleague in July 2020 and was given an informal warning. When she used the word again in December 2020, the trust investigated and dismissed her for gross misconduct.
The claimant argued that the investigation was flawed — for example, the investigating officer did not interview a key witness who might have supported her version of events. However, the tribunal noted that the employer had a genuine belief, based on the evidence it had, that the second incident occurred. The claimant had admitted the word "might have slipped out" and sent an apology email. The tribunal also considered that the claimant had not appealed the dismissal, which weakened her case.
What the employer did right
The trust acted promptly once the allegation was reported, held a proper investigation, and gave the claimant the opportunity to attend the disciplinary hearing with representation. When the claimant chose not to attend, the hearing proceeded in her absence — a step the tribunal found reasonable given that she had agreed to this. The dismissing officer considered the claimant's long service and clean record but concluded that the use of racist language, especially after a warning, justified summary dismissal.
Why the result matters
This case reinforces that employers can take a zero-tolerance approach to racist language without being found unfair, provided they follow a fair process. For employees, it is a reminder that informal warnings count: using the same offensive term again after being told not to is likely to be treated as gross misconduct. The fact that the claimant did not appeal internally also made it harder for her to persuade the tribunal that the dismissal was unreasonable.
Similar cases
Project manager dismissed for planting listening device: tribunal upholds dismissal
A project manager with 21 years' service was fairly dismissed after a listening device was found in his boss's office, with wires leading to his desk. The Liverpool tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
Expense claim misrepresentation led to fair dismissal for financial services analyst
A senior analyst with 7 years' service was fairly dismissed after submitting an expense claim that included his partner's meals and then denying it during investigation. The tribunal upheld Citibank's decision.
Community nurse dismissed for gross misconduct: professional boundaries with vulnerable patient
A Band 5 community nurse with six years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after inappropriate contact with a vulnerable patient, the tribunal ruled.
Ward manager unfairly dismissed after employer mistook cannabis metabolite for cannabis
A 40-year nursing veteran was unfairly dismissed by Priory Healthcare after the employer mistakenly believed a urine test showed she was under the influence of cannabis at work. The tribunal found the dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses.