Dismissed for sending sexual messages to colleagues: gross misconduct upheld
An employment tribunal has held that the Home Office fairly dismissed a PO3 examiner who sent unsolicited sexual messages to female colleagues and made inappropriate comments about a colleague's teenage daughter.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #race-discrimination
- #unfair-dismissal
- #social-media-misconduct
- #gross-misconduct
- #lack-of-insight
- #comparator-analysis
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by the Home Office as a PO3 Examiner from 16 December 2019 until dismissal on 26 August 2021.
- The claimant sent unsolicited social media messages of a sexual nature to two female colleagues, AB and IJ.
- The claimant made a comment about a colleague's 17-year-old daughter using slang terms for sexual intercourse.
- The claimant's conduct caused IJ to feel intimidated and report concerns to the police.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct after a disciplinary hearing.
- The tribunal found that the claimant did not have sufficient continuous employment to claim unfair dismissal, and in any event the dismissal was fair.
Timeline
-
Start of HMPO employment
Claimant commenced employment as a PO3 Examiner at HMPO, an executive agency of the Home Office, while already employed by HMRC.
-
Inappropriate messaging begins
Claimant initiated unsolicited social media contact with AB and IJ, including comments on appearance and relationships.
-
Message about pierced nipples
Claimant commented on AB's photo about her pierced nipples, which she found inappropriate.
-
Message about colleague's daughter
Claimant sent a message to LA saying 'I'd dust her' and 'proper peng' about LE's 17-year-old daughter.
-
Car park incident
Claimant did a wheelspin near IJ's car and later messaged her saying he didn't mean to scare her.
-
IJ reports concerns
IJ spoke to her line manager about the claimant's behaviour, feeling concerned for her safety.
-
Manager speaks to claimant
LE spoke to claimant about complaints from AB and IJ, reminding him of the Civil Service Code.
-
Suspension
Claimant was suspended from work pending investigation into the allegations.
-
Disciplinary hearing
DS conducted a disciplinary hearing where claimant denied misconduct and raised race discrimination concerns.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed and whether the dismissal amounted to direct race discrimination. A preliminary issue was whether the claimant had enough continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both claims.
- The claimant had less than two years' continuous service with the Home Office, so he could not bring an unfair dismissal claim. Even if he could, the dismissal was fair.
- The race discrimination claim failed because the claimant did not provide evidence of less favourable treatment compared to a white colleague in similar circumstances.
- No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees with less than two years' continuous service generally cannot claim unfair dismissal, unless the reason is automatically unfair (e.g., whistleblowing or discrimination).
- Sending unsolicited sexual messages to colleagues, especially when combined with comments about a colleague's child, is likely to be treated as gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal.
- A dismissal for gross misconduct will be fair if the employer has a genuine belief in the misconduct, carries out a reasonable investigation, and follows a fair procedure.
- Race discrimination claims require a proper comparator or evidence that race was a factor in the treatment; a mere assertion is not enough.
This case shows how employment tribunals approach dismissals for gross misconduct involving inappropriate behaviour outside the workplace but linked to work relationships. The claimant, a PO3 examiner with less than two years' service, sent unsolicited social media messages of a sexual nature to two female colleagues and made a crude comment about a colleague's 17-year-old daughter. The Home Office investigated, suspended him, and dismissed him for gross misconduct.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal first addressed a preliminary point: the claimant did not have the two years' continuous service needed to bring an unfair dismissal claim. His contract with the Home Office explicitly stated that previous employment with another government department would not count. Even if he had the service, the tribunal found the dismissal was fair because the employer genuinely believed he had committed gross misconduct, carried out a reasonable investigation, and followed a fair disciplinary process.
The race discrimination claim also failed. The claimant argued that a white colleague had received only a warning for similar behaviour, but the tribunal found the cases were not comparable. The colleague's conduct was less serious and he had shown insight and remorse, which the claimant did not.
What the employer did right
The Home Office acted promptly once concerns were raised. It suspended the claimant, investigated thoroughly, and gave him a fair disciplinary hearing. The dismissing manager considered the seriousness of the behaviour, the impact on colleagues, and the claimant's lack of insight. The appeal process was also properly conducted.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that employees with less than two years' service have limited protection against unfair dismissal, unless the reason is automatically unfair. It also highlights that employers can fairly dismiss for off-duty conduct if it affects work relationships or brings the organisation into disrepute. For employees, the key lesson is that inappropriate messages, even on personal social media, can have serious employment consequences.
Similar cases
Healthcare consultant dismissed for gross misconduct after customer complaints: race discrimination claims rejected
A healthcare consultant with 6 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct following four customer complaints about his attitude. The tribunal also rejected his claims of race discrimination and victimisation.
Bus driver dismissed for using phone while driving: insufficient service bars unfair dismissal claim
A bus driver with only 7 weeks' service was dismissed for gross misconduct after using his mobile phone while driving. The tribunal struck out his unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims.
Maths teacher dismissed for gross misconduct: unfair dismissal claim fails due to short service
A maths teacher with less than two years' service was dismissed for gross misconduct. The employment tribunal dismissed his unfair dismissal claim for lack of jurisdiction and found no race discrimination.
Bank admin worker's race discrimination claim against NHS Trust dismissed
A Birmingham Employment Tribunal dismissed all claims of race discrimination and unfair dismissal brought by a former bank admin worker against University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, finding her allegations of a racist conspiracy involving over 30 people to be without evidence.