Tribunal considers whether a comment about 'coloured ladies' amounted to harassment related to race

The recent case of Amy Reeves v Kier Ltd provides a useful illustration of how tribunals apply that test.

Facts

Ms Reeves worked as a Commercial Administrator for an infrastructure, construction and property company on a fixed term contract. She described herself as being of mixed race, British and Jamaican.

During her employment, she alleged that a number of workplace incidents occurred including: 

1. a manager referring to “two coloured ladies outside”  
2. a colleague describing a tenant as a “little old black lady”
3. comments allegedly made by managers about employees' non-English sounding names
4. a manager speaking to her aggressively during a Teams meeting after she changed the date of a client event without informing those responsible
5. colleagues whispering in the office, which she believed related to her
6. a failure to display her photograph alongside a photograph of colleagues who attended a client event that she did not attend
7. a manager criticising her for posting a photograph of herself working in the garden during hot weather because other colleagues were required to work in the office
8. a colleague deleting her tasks and responding inappropriately when questioned about it
9. a change to the end date of her contract

When Ms Reeves raised concerns about the first three incidents above, she asked the manager not to escalate to HR because she felt supported by him. The manager reminded staff about expected standards of behaviour and signposted them to relevant training. 

Ms Reeves later submitted a formal grievance covering all of the issues which the company investigated even when she chose not to participate.

After periods of sickness absence due to work related stress, Ms Reeves resigned and brought claims for harassment related to race, victimisation, and direct race discrimination. 

Employment tribunal

1. Harassment related to race

Ms Reeves argued that a manager's reference to “two coloured ladies outside” amounted to harassment related to race. 

Under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010, harassment occurs where an employee experiences unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic, such as sex, race, age, disability, and that conduct has the purpose or effect of violating their dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for them. 

The tribunal accepted that the comment had been made and that it related to race. It also accepted that Ms Reeves found it upsetting and that it prompted her to raise concerns with a manager. However, in all the circumstances, the tribunal found it was not harassment. 

In reaching that decision, the tribunal took account of the fact that it was a one-off comment, was not directed at Ms Reeves and was used to describe two individuals. While it accepted that the term is generally regarded as old-fashioned and can be offensive, it considered the EAT's decision in Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal, which emphasised that not every race related comment or act will amount to harassment. In all the circumstances, the tribunal found that it was not reasonable for the comment in the circumstances to have the effect on Ms Reeves required to establish harassment. 

Ms Reeves also argued that several other incidents amounted to harassment, including a colleague referring to a tenant as a “little old black lady”, alleged comments by managers about employees' names, and the reassignment of her tasks. The tribunal rejected these allegations. It concluded that the reference to a “little old black lady” was used as a description, the comments about employees' names were unlikely to have been made, and the tasks had been reassigned while she was off sick. It found no evidence that the conduct amount to harassment related to race.

2. Direct race discrimination

Ms Reeves also brought claims for direct race discrimination based on many of the same allegations. She argued that she had been treated less favourably than a hypothetical white British comparator because of her race. The tribunal disagreed, finding that the treatment she complained about was unrelated to race. It concluded that a comparator would have been treated in the same way and dismissed the claims. 

3. Victimisation

Ms Reeves also argued that she had been victimised for raising concerns about discrimination and later submitting a grievance. The tribunal accepted that these were protected acts under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010. 

However, it found no evidence that the treatment she complained of, including the Teams meeting, colleagues allegedly whispering about her, the failure to display her photograph, the manager's response to her garden photograph, and the deletion of her tasks, were connected to those protected acts. The tribunal found that the individuals involved were unaware that Ms Reeves had raised discrimination concerns and therefore could not have acted because of them.

The tribunal also rejected allegations that her grievance was handled poorly because of the protected acts. It noted that the employer had repeatedly tried to engage with her, offered welfare support, adapted arrangements at her request and explored different ways of progressing the grievance. The tribunal commented that it was difficult to see what more the company could reasonably have done. 

The victimisation claims therefore failed. 

What can employers learn from this case?

The tribunal accepted that the phrase “two coloured ladies” related to race and that Ms Reeves found it offensive. However, when determining whether conduct amounts to unlawful harassment, tribunals must consider all the circumstances, including the purpose or effect of the conduct and whether it was reasonable for it to have the effect alleged. 

You should not interpret this decision as suggesting that the term is appropriate or acceptable in the workplace. The tribunal's role was not to determine whether the comment was acceptable, but whether it met the statutory definition of harassment in the specific circumstances of the case. Although the tribunal concluded that the test was not met, you should still take care to promote respectful and inclusive language.

The case also highlights the importance of responding appropriately when concerns are raised. Even where conduct may not ultimately amount to harassment, you should still take complaints seriously, investigate them appropriately and reinforce expected standards of behaviour. In this case, the employer listened to the complaint, reminded staff about expected standards, provided refresher training, investigated the grievance and offered ongoing support. 

Although this case did not involve third-party harassment, it serves as a timely reminder to review the steps you take to prevent harassment by both colleagues and third parties. From October 2026, employers will be liable for third-party harassment unless they can show that they have taken all reasonable steps to prevent it. With the new liability fast approaching, now is the time to assess whether your policies, training and workplace culture are doing enough to prevent and address harassment. 

You can find out more about the upcoming harassment changes here. 

Our newsletters

We publish monthly employment newsletters and education newsletters. If you’d like to be added to the mailing list, please let me know.