Dismissed for a racist joke after 10 years: a sanction that went too far
A coin processor with 10 years' unblemished service was unfairly dismissed for posting a racist joke on the company intranet. The tribunal found a final written warning would have been appropriate and awarded £6,139.92.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant posted a racist joke on the company intranet on 28 September 2021.
- The joke was reported and removed within minutes.
- The claimant had 10 years of unblemished service and offered full apologies.
- The dismissing officer felt constrained by a zero-tolerance policy but did not consider a lesser sanction.
- The employer failed to investigate the claimant's claim that the joke came from a 'clean' section of a website.
- The tribunal found dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses and a final written warning would have been appropriate.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for Vaultex UK Ltd as a Super Operator / Coin Processor.
-
Racist joke posted
Claimant posted a racist joke on the company intranet, Workvivo, under the guise of an anti-racist campaign.
-
Joke reported and removed
The post was reported for racism within minutes and removed by IT.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed without notice for misconduct, following a disciplinary hearing chaired by Mr Babbage.
-
ACAS notified
Early conciliation was notified to ACAS.
-
ACAS certificate issued
Early conciliation certificate was issued.
-
Claim presented
ET1 claim form was presented to the tribunal.
-
Response filed
ET3 response form was sent by the respondent.
-
Hearing
Substantive hearing took place at East London Hearing Centre before Employment Judge S Knight.
-
Judgment
Judgment was issued finding unfair dismissal and awarding £6,139.92.
The legal issue
Whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing an employee for posting a racist joke on the company intranet, given the employee's long service, unblemished record, and the employer's investigation shortcomings.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the dismissal was unfair. The key reasons were: the dismissing officer felt constrained by a zero-tolerance policy but did not consider a lesser sanction; the employer failed to investigate the claimant's claim that the joke came from a 'clean' section of a website; and a final written warning would have been appropriate given the claimant's 10 years of unblemished service and full apologies.
Compensation breakdown:
- Basic award: £3,796.40
- Compensatory award: £2,343.52 (reduced by 25% for contributory fault)
- Total: £6,139.92
Lessons & takeaways
- Long-serving employees with clean records are entitled to more lenient treatment; a zero-tolerance policy does not override the need for a proportionate sanction.
- Employers should conduct a thorough investigation into the context and source of alleged misconduct before deciding on dismissal.
- A prompt apology and remorse can be significant mitigating factors that should be weighed against dismissal.
- A final written warning may be a more appropriate sanction than dismissal for a first offence, even under a zero-tolerance policy.
When a joke costs a job — but not fairly
A Super Operator with 10 years of unblemished service was dismissed for posting a racist joke on the company intranet. The joke, posted under the guise of an anti-racist campaign, was reported and removed within minutes. The employee promptly apologised and claimed the joke came from a 'clean' section of a website. Despite this, the dismissing officer felt bound by a zero-tolerance policy and did not consider a lesser sanction.
What the employer got wrong
The tribunal found that the employer's investigation was inadequate. It failed to check the employee's claim about the joke's source, which could have shown the post was not malicious. More importantly, the dismissing officer did not consider whether a final written warning would be sufficient, given the employee's long service and clean record. The zero-tolerance policy was applied rigidly, without balancing the employee's mitigating factors.
Why this matters
This case shows that even serious misconduct like posting a racist joke does not automatically justify dismissal. Employers must conduct a fair investigation and consider all circumstances, including the employee's length of service, disciplinary history, and genuine remorse. A zero-tolerance policy is not a blank cheque to dismiss; it must be applied reasonably. For employees, this case reinforces that a long, unblemished record can be a powerful defence against dismissal for a first offence.
Similar cases
22-year kitchen porter dismissed for sexual harassment: zero-tolerance policy upheld
A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a kitchen porter with 22 years' service after he whispered 'I wish I could impregnate you' to a colleague, following a previous warning about inappropriate comments.
Security officer with 17 years' service dismissed for refusing hand sanitiser checks: unfair but heavily reduced award
A security officer who refused to carry out hand sanitiser checks was unfairly dismissed due to a flawed investigation, but his 75% contribution and a 90% Polkey reduction meant he received only £5,281.
31-year Home Office officer dismissed for unauthorised database lookups: dismissal fair despite procedural flaws
An Immigration Enforcement Officer with 31 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after carrying out unauthorised lookups on a Home Office database, including after a zero-tolerance policy was introduced. The tribunal found the employer's belief in misconduct was genuine and reasonable, despite procedural shortcomings.
Store manager dismissed for timecard falsification after 21 years: dismissal fair
A tribunal has dismissed an unfair dismissal claim by a store manager with 21 years' service who was sacked for overbooking holidays and falsifying time records.