Senior salesperson dismissed for 'race card' comment and conduct towards child customers
A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a senior salesperson with 9 years' service after he made a 'race card' comment to street wardens and acted intimidatorily towards two schoolboys in the store.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #misconduct
- #child-customer
- #race-card-comment
- #cctv-evidence
- #range-of-reasonable-responses
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a senior sales person from 6 April 2011 until dismissal on 16 December 2020.
- On 13 October 2020, the claimant approached two boys aged 11-14 in the store and asked them to leave.
- The claimant made a comment about the 'race card' to a group of street wardens who confronted him.
- The respondent investigated and dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct.
- The claimant did not appeal the dismissal.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working at Flannels store in Nottingham.
-
Incident with customers
Claimant interacted with two boys and later a group of street wardens, making a 'race card' comment.
-
Invitation to disciplinary hearing
Claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing, told dismissal could be an outcome.
-
First disciplinary hearing missed
Claimant did not attend the scheduled hearing due to email access issues.
-
Disciplinary hearing held
Claimant attended and gave his account of the incident.
-
Dismissal letter
Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Tribunal hearing day 1
Full hearing of unfair dismissal claim began.
-
Tribunal hearing day 2 and judgment
Judgment given dismissing the claim.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the claimant for misconduct, specifically whether the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim.
The key reasons were:
- The employer had a genuine belief, based on a reasonable investigation (including CCTV footage), that the claimant had acted intimidatorily towards two child customers and made a racially charged 'race card' comment to street wardens.
- The employer's decision to dismiss for gross misconduct was within the range of reasonable responses, given the serious nature of the conduct.
- The claimant did not appeal the dismissal internally, which weakened his position.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Even long-serving employees with clean records can be fairly dismissed for serious misconduct if the employer follows a reasonable process.
- Comments that could be perceived as racially charged, even if not intended, can justify dismissal if the employer reasonably believes they amount to gross misconduct.
- Failing to appeal an internal dismissal decision can harm a subsequent unfair dismissal claim, as tribunals may view it as a failure to exhaust internal remedies.
- Employers should ensure they conduct a thorough investigation, including reviewing available CCTV footage, before making a dismissal decision.
What this case shows in practice
This case demonstrates that even a long-serving employee with an unblemished disciplinary record can be fairly dismissed for a single incident of serious misconduct. The senior salesperson had worked for The Flannels Group Limited for nine years, but a brief interaction with two schoolboys and a subsequent comment to street wardens led to his dismissal.
The tribunal heard that the claimant approached two boys aged 11-14 in the store and asked them to leave. Later, when confronted by a group of street wardens, he made a comment about the 'race card'. The employer investigated, viewed CCTV footage, and dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant represented himself at the tribunal and did not appeal the dismissal internally. The tribunal noted that the employer's investigation was reasonable, and the decision to dismiss fell within the range of reasonable responses. The claimant argued that his comment was not racially charged and that he was provoked, but the tribunal found that the employer was entitled to reach a different view based on the evidence.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case reinforces that tribunals will not substitute their own judgment for that of the employer, provided the employer acts reasonably. It also highlights the importance of internal appeals: failing to appeal can undermine a claim. For employees, it serves as a reminder that comments perceived as racially charged, even if unintended, can have serious consequences. For employers, it confirms that a thorough investigation and a reasonable belief in misconduct can justify dismissal, even for a first offence.
Similar cases
Milk theft on CCTV: dismissal upheld as fair despite inconsistent explanations
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a milk delivery driver who was caught on CCTV removing milk from customers' doorsteps. The respondent's investigation and decision were within the range of reasonable responses.
22-year service host dismissed for theft: Asda's decision upheld as fair
An employment tribunal has upheld Asda's dismissal of a service host with 22 years' service after CCTV showed her taking coins and bags for life without paying. The tribunal found the decision was within the range of reasonable responses.
Security officer dismissed for leaving post: unauthorised absences justified gross misconduct
A security officer with six years' service was fairly dismissed after CCTV footage showed he left his post without authorisation on multiple occasions. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
Driver dismissed for urinating on loading dock after choosing coffee over toilet break
A driver with six years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after urinating on a loading dock in full view of CCTV. The tribunal upheld the employer's decision, finding the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.