Train manager dismissed for offensive George Floyd posts: dismissal unfair but compensation slashed
A train manager with 32 years' service was unfairly dismissed for posting racially divisive social media messages about George Floyd, but the tribunal found she would have been dismissed anyway and cut her award by 75% for her own conduct.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #social-media-posts
- #george-floyd
- #black-lives-matter
- #racially-divisive
- #lack-of-remorse
- #polkey-deduction
- #contributory-conduct
Key facts
- The claimant posted offensive and racially divisive social media messages about George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter movement.
- The claimant had 32 years of unblemished service and was a train manager at a culturally diverse depot.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct after an investigation and disciplinary hearing.
- The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair due to the appeal chair's predetermined approach and failure to consider mitigation.
- The tribunal held that the dismissal was nonetheless inevitable and reduced the compensatory award by 100% under Polkey.
- The basic award was reduced by 75% for contributory conduct.
Timeline
-
George Floyd murdered
George Floyd was killed by a police officer in the USA, sparking global protests and the Black Lives Matter movement.
-
Claimant posted first offensive meme
The claimant reposted a meme about Lee Rigby's murder, comparing public reactions to George Floyd's death.
-
Posts reported to manager
Colleague Charles Ayabina reported the claimant's posts to line manager Tom Naughton, saying it was 'kicking off' at the depot.
-
Manager requested removal of posts
Mr Naughton asked the claimant to remove the posts; she initially refused but later complied.
-
Further complaints received
Several black employees complained about the posts, some expressing reluctance to work with the claimant.
-
Fact-finding meeting held
Mr Naughton held a fact-finding meeting with the claimant; she was suspended shortly after.
-
Claimant posted additional offensive content
The claimant reposted a meme about an 'elderly white couple murdered by Blackman' while suspended.
-
Second fact-finding meeting
The claimant attended a second fact-finding meeting, represented by Mr Morris of the Workers of England Trade Union.
-
Referral to disciplinary hearing
Mr Naughton decided to refer the matter to a Company Disciplinary Interview (CDI) for gross misconduct.
-
Disciplinary hearing
The CDI was chaired by Mr Musa and Ms Brades; the claimant was found guilty and summarily dismissed.
-
Dismissal confirmed
The claimant was informed of her dismissal; she appealed.
-
Appeal hearing
Mr Howarth chaired the appeal; he dismissed the appeal, citing lack of remorse.
-
Liability hearing began
The employment tribunal heard the case over five days, finding unfair dismissal but no race discrimination.
-
Liability judgment issued
The tribunal issued its reserved judgment, allowing the unfair dismissal and holiday pay claims.
-
Remedy hearing
The tribunal awarded a basic award of £3,564.25 after a 75% reduction for contributory conduct, and holiday pay of £3,720.45.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for posting offensive social media messages, and whether her dismissal involved unjustified interference with her rights to private life and freedom of expression under Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed because the appeal process was flawed: the appeal chair had a predetermined view and did not properly consider her mitigation. However, the tribunal also held that the dismissal was inevitable given the nature of the posts and her lack of remorse, so the compensatory award was reduced by 100% under the Polkey principle.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £3,564.25 (reduced by 75% for contributory conduct)
- Compensatory award: £0 (reduced by 100% under Polkey)
- Holiday pay: £3,720.45
- Total: £7,284.70
Lessons & takeaways
- Length of service and a clean record do not automatically protect against dismissal for serious misconduct, especially where the conduct is racially divisive.
- A flawed appeal process can make a dismissal unfair, even if the original decision was reasonable and the outcome was inevitable.
- Posting offensive content on social media, even outside work hours, can be grounds for dismissal if it breaches employer policies and harms workplace relations.
- Tribunals will apply Polkey reductions where they find the employee would have been dismissed anyway, potentially wiping out the compensatory award entirely.
- Contributory conduct can reduce the basic award significantly if the employee's own actions contributed to the dismissal.
What this case shows in practice
A train manager with 32 years of unblemished service lost her job after posting offensive and racially divisive social media messages about George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter movement. The posts, made in June 2020, included a meme comparing public reactions to the deaths of George Floyd and Lee Rigby, and another about an 'elderly white couple murdered by Blackman'. Colleagues reported the posts, and several black employees expressed reluctance to work with her. The employer, London Underground Limited, dismissed her for gross misconduct after an investigation and disciplinary hearing.
The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair because the appeal chair had a predetermined approach and failed to consider her mitigation, such as her long service and clean record. However, the tribunal also held that the dismissal was inevitable given the serious nature of the posts and her lack of remorse. As a result, the compensatory award was reduced to zero under the Polkey principle, and the basic award was reduced by 75% for contributory conduct.
What the losing side could have done differently
London Underground could have avoided the finding of unfair dismissal by ensuring the appeal process was genuinely open-minded. The appeal chair should have considered the claimant's mitigation rather than focusing solely on her lack of remorse. For the claimant, the outcome might have been different if she had shown genuine remorse and acknowledged the impact of her posts on colleagues. Her continued posting of offensive material while suspended undermined her case.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case highlights that even a long-serving employee with a clean record can be dismissed for off-duty social media posts that are racially divisive and breach employer policies. However, employers must still follow fair procedures, especially at the appeal stage. For employees, the case is a reminder that freedom of expression on social media has limits when it conflicts with workplace harmony and employer reputation. The significant Polkey and contributory reductions show that tribunals will not award compensation where the employee's own conduct is the primary cause of dismissal.
Similar cases
Dismissed without a disciplinary hearing: procedural unfairness costs employer £9,500
A former employee with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after being suspended and then sacked without any disciplinary hearing. The Cambridge tribunal awarded £9,546.81 in compensation.
Former employee unfairly dismissed but gets only basic award after 70% contributory conduct deduction
A Watford tribunal found Mitie Ltd unfairly dismissed a former employee but reduced his basic award by 70% for his own conduct and made no compensatory award due to a 100% Polkey reduction. He received £1,298.10.
PCV driver dismissed after failing breath tests: flawed appeal but dismissal largely upheld
A PCV driver who failed three breath alcohol tests was unfairly dismissed due to a flawed appeal, but the tribunal found she would have been dismissed anyway and reduced compensation by 75% for contributory conduct.
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.