Inappropriate language in the workplace should be addressed immediately to prevent victims from suffering any long-term detrimental effects, as well as the employer suffering damage to their reputation. In these cases, employers must carefully consider if the dismissal falls within the reasonable range of responses available to them.
This situation was recently addressed in the case of G Coleman v Doncaster Culture & Leisure Trust.
The Facts
Mr Coleman was employed as a teacher at a primary school. During a lesson, he made a comment to a female child – aged around 10/11 years, stating that she “looked like she worked out.” This made the child feel uncomfortable, and her parents reported the incident to the school. After a formal investigation and disciplinary hearing, the employer dismissed the employee.
The employer deemed the comment inappropriate, and that it had potentially damaged the child’s emotions, breached safeguarding, and damaged the school’s reputation. As a result, the employee was dismissed for gross misconduct. The matter was notified to the DBS, and the Local Authority Designated Officer.
The Appeal
Mr Coleman took the matter to the Employment Tribunal (ET). He claimed he had been unfairly and wrongfully dismissed as the alleged conduct was not a safeguarding issue. However, the ET decided that the employer had acted reasonably, and that the dismissal was fair. The employer had a genuine belief that the employee’s conduct was inappropriate and amounted to gross misconduct. The employer had acted in their range of reasonable responses, and the decision was fair even though it was only his first act of misconduct.
He was in a position of trust and taught swimming to children. His actions could cause reputational damage to the employer. The parents of the child had complained, and asked if he was still teaching swimming classes as they had to decide if their daughter would participate in the lessons. As such, damage had already been done to the school’s reputation.
The ET said the comment he made about the child’s physical appearance was both inappropriate and a safeguarding issue. It was a breach of their policy, which also covered pupils’ mental wellbeing. The act was therefore one of gross misconduct as such behaviour could also cause the school damage to their reputation. Mr Coleman’s wrongful dismissal case was also rejected on the same grounds.
Alternate Options
The tribunal judgement doesn’t provide any context to help explain why the teacher made this highly inappropriate comment. There is no suggestion that he had behaved inappropriately before, or that they had safeguarding concerns about him. His dismissal could be viewed as harsh, but – as this case shows, that does not mean it was unfair. The range of reasonable responses test is wide enough to encompass different responses and recognises that different employers will choose different options.
On these facts, another employer may – for example, have given Mr Coleman a final written warning, and provided additional training to ensure that he did not make any other personalised comments on any pupils’ appearance or bodies.
This article is for guidance purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you require any legal advice, please contact the Quest Advice Line on 01455 852028.
