Calling Women Offensive Names Is Workplace Misconduct

By Anuradha Gandhi, Isha Sharma and Rishabh Gupta

Introduction

Workplaces across the world continue to grapple with the challenges of maintaining dignity, equality, and respect for all employees. Although many employers claim to foster inclusive environments, reality often reveals a different story—where biases, stereotypes, and casual “banter” cross professional boundaries and cause significant emotional harm. Courts and tribunals globally are increasingly sending a strong message: harassment of any kind will not be tolerated, and employers must take proactive steps to protect their workforce.

A recent UK Employment Tribunal judgment delivered on November 26, 2025, serves as a striking example.

The Tribunal awarded £20,735.91 (approximately INR 29 lakhs) in compensation to an Irish woman who suffered repeated racial harassment at the hands of her company’s director. The Tribunal found that the company’s director repeatedly targeted her Irish heritage through mocking slurs- including “potato”, “Paddy”, “stupid Paddy” and “pikey”.

The judge held that for a person of Irish origin, such remarks are inherently degrading and clearly tied to race, particularly when considered together rather than in isolation and hence qualified as harassment under the UK Equality Act, 2010.[1]

The case highlights how persistent use of derogatory stereotypes—even under the guise of humour—can create a workplace environment that is humiliating, intimidating, and unlawful.

This decision also presents an interesting opportunity to draw parallels with India’s robust legal framework under the POSH Act, 2013, which—unlike the UK’s consolidated anti‑discrimination law—specifically focuses on protecting women against sexual harassment at the workplace. Together, the two jurisdictions demonstrate both the universality of the problem and the varying legislative approaches to tackling it.

Key Facts of the Case

Ms. B Hayes (Claimant), an Irish national, was employed by West Leeds Civils Ltd as an office manager and bookkeeper from September/October 2021, initially part-time and later full-time. During her employment, she was subjected to repeated derogatory remarks referencing nationality, both in-person and via text messages.

. Despite telling him that the comments were offensive and unwelcome, the behavior persisted.

By mid 2024, after raising formal grievances, she noticed the company had begun recruiting for her role- something she perceived as retaliation for speaking up. She also reported receiving intimidating messages outside business hours, which further worsened her mental health.

“The claimant states that Mr. Atkins has ignored her concerns and sent her instead intimidating messages outside of working hours making her feel bullied and harassed which has affected her mental health.”

The Respondent argued that Hayes occasionally “joined in,” citing her use of a potato emoji in response to his messages.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal while arriving at its conclusion highlighted the following statues and precedents in order to explain Workplace Harassment.

1. Harassment Related to Race
   • Firstly, the Tribunal highlighted Section 26 of UK’s Equality Act, 2010 which provides the essentials to constitute “Harassment”. These essentials are –
     1. Unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic which includes age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation
     2. Having the purpose or effect of violating the person’s dignity; or
     3. Creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.[2]
   • Secondly, the court relied upon the judgment laid down in Thomas Sanderson Blinds Ltd v. English[3] to give effect to Racial Harassment. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in this case held that “an unwanted conduct means conduct that is unwanted by the employee. The necessary implication is that whether conduct is ‘unwanted’ should largely be assessed subjectively, i.e. from the employee’s point of view.” Further, while deciding whether the conduct has the effect of violating the claimant’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the claimant, each of the following must be taken into account –
     1. The perception of the claimant;
     2. The other circumstances of the case; and
     3. whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect
   • The test therefore has both subjective and objective elements to it. The subjective part involves the tribunal looking at the effect that the conduct of the alleged harasser has on the complainant. The objective part requires the tribunal to ask itself whether it was reasonable for B to claim that A’s conduct had that effect.
2. Untoward Conduct
   • The Tribunal held that even though the claimant had ‘join in’ on a small number of occasions in the conversation by responding with a potato emoji, the same was done by her in an attempt to ‘fit in’ in the conversation and that her conduct was not in fact, “wanted”. The Court further ruled that, “from a subjective point of view, Respondent’s act clearly created a hostile, humiliating and offensive environment for her. It is reasonable for an individual of Irish heritage to find the repeated use of the terms “potato”, “Paddy”, “stupid Paddy” and “pikey” offensive and humiliating. These phrases are overtly linked to race, particularly when considered together rather than in isolation. Hence, the conduct amounts to racial harassment within the meaning of Section 26 of the Equality Act, 2010.”
   • In the same pretext, it is important to mention yet another precedent that has been laid down by the courts of UK. In the case of Horman v. Distribution Group Ltd. t/as Repco Auto Parts (2002)[4], the Federal Court has ruled that even if the Complainant had initiated and encouraged some act, this does not prevent any other act from being unwelcome and constituting sexual harassment.
3. Assessment of Claimant’s Injury to Feelings
   • While deciding the amount of compensation, the tribunal decided not to separate compensation for harassment and victimization. It held that the emotional impact from both was intertwined, so a single “global sum” was more appropriate rather than splitting the award between the two claims.
   • Bracket of Damages – The Tribunal noted that the frequency and duration of the conduct, the overt nature of the comments, and the humiliating language caused significant distress to the claimant. Further, the impact lasted for overall period of 10 months followed by 4 months of absence due to work related stress which though also included other factors, but materially caused due to discrimination. Accordingly, the Tribunal fixed the compensation at falls the lower end of the middle band with an amount of £13,000.

Remedy

The Respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the following sums for the claims of harassment related to race and victimization:

1. Injury to feelings: £13,000
2. Interest on injury to feelings: £1,139.71
3. Financial losses: £6014.03 d. Interest on financial losses: £582.17

Comparison between UK Equality Act and POSH Act

Unlike in India which has a separate legislation i.e. Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “POSH Act”)  to address workplace sexual harassment, UK does not have a specific legislation which addresses sexual harassment at workplace exclusively like in India.

The Equality Act 2010 consolidates anti-discrimination law in the U.K. and explicitly prohibits harassment related to sex, including unwanted conduct that violates dignity or creates an intimidating work environment[5]. Employers are held vicariously liable for acts of harassment committed by employees unless they demonstrate that they took “all reasonable steps” to prevent such conduct.[6] Remedies include compensation for financial and emotional harm through Employment Tribunals, which provide accessible forums for employees. While awarding such remedies, the Tribunal may also order to pay to the complainant a “Compensation Uplift” if the respondent fails to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment of employees. Such compensation should not be more than 25% of the amount awarded by the Employment Tribunal[7].

The POSH Act on the contrary, has provided a detailed mechanism to address sexual harassment at workplaces and has laid down clear procedures for complaint, inquiry, employer duties, and remedies including provisions for settlement and conciliation.[8]

Recognition of Verbal Sexual Harassment in India

India’s approach to workplace harassment is codified through the POSH Act, a detailed and victim‑centric legislation that sets out mechanisms for complaint, inquiry, employer duties, and compensation.

Section 15 of the POSH Act provides for the mechanism for Determination of Compensation. Under this provision, the Internal Committee (IC) while determining compensation to be awarded to the aggrieved women, must give regard to the following factors –

• The mental trauma, pain, suffering and emotional distress caused to the aggrieved woman;
• The loss in the career opportunity due to the incident of sexual harassment;
• Medical expenses incurred by the victim for physical or psychiatric treatment;
• The income and financial status of the respondent;
• Feasibility of such payment in lump sum or in instalments.

Unlike UK Tribunals, which award damages for injury to feelings, categorized into bands (lower, middle, upper) depending on severity, Indian laws has adopted a more broader framework that considers emotional distress alongside career setbacks, medical costs, and the respondent’s financial capacity, making it more comprehensive in scope.

In a pivotal ruling dated July 15, 2025, the Delhi Dwarka Court significantly broadened the understanding of verbal sexual harassment in India’s legal landscape. The Court held that the use of a deeply derogatory slur such as R*I** against a woman constitutes a criminal offence under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), now renumbered as Section 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).[9]

Hon’ble Justice Mr. Harjot Singh Aujla observed that such expressions are not mere casual insults. Instead, they amount to a direct attack on a woman’s dignity, modesty, and character—values the Indian Constitution protects as intrinsic to her fundamental right to life under Article 21.

The Magistrate further remarked:

“The word is not a word which is used simply to insult a person.
The word is bound to insult the modesty of any hardworking woman.”

The Court emphasised that when such a slur is hurled at a woman, it implies promiscuity, questions her sexual fidelity, and casts aspersions on her moral character—all of which collectively strip her of inherent dignity.

Why This Judgment Matters

This ruling marks a watershed moment in India’s jurisprudence by:

• unequivocally recognising verbal sexual harassment as actionable and criminal,
• aligning criminal law with the protective intent of the POSH Act, and
• reinforcing the idea that a woman’s dignity must be upheld not only in physical spaces but also in speech, tone, and language.

Together, the POSH Act and this judicial interpretation strengthen India’s stance that any derogatory, sexually‑loaded, or character‑shaming remark targeting a woman is not just inappropriate — it is unlawful.

Conclusion:

The UK Tribunal judgment stands as a crucial reminder that harassment rooted in stereotypes—even when masked as humour—is unlawful and profoundly damaging. The ruling sends a clear message: employers must maintain respectful workplaces and respond promptly and appropriately when concerns are raised. Passive tolerance of abusive language or behaviour can expose organisations to significant liability.

From an Indian perspective, the case underscores the importance of strong internal mechanisms like those mandated under the POSH Act, reflecting India’s progressive approach in establishing a specialised remedy for sexual harassment. Together, such statutes—whether consolidated or standalone—illustrate a global trend towards strengthening employee protection and enforcing accountability.

Ultimately, whether in the UK or India, the core principle remains the same:
Every employee has the right to work in an environment that is safe, dignified, and free from discrimination. Organisations must not only comply with the law but foster a culture where respect is non-negotiable.

[1] Ms. B Hayes v. West Leeds Civils Ltd, dated November 26, 2025 available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69aa833bac93547152b9b24b/Ms_B_Hayes_v_West_Leeds_Civils_Ltd_6015780_2024_WR.pdf

[2] Section 26 of Equality Act, 2010 available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26

[3] Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) 0316/10

[4] (2002) FCA 219

[5] Section 26 of the Equality Act, 2010

[6] Section 109 of the Equality Act, 2010

[7] Section 124A of the Equality Act, 2010

[8] https://ssrana.in/corporate-laws/labour-laws-india/posh-law-sexual-harassment-women-workplace-india/

[9] https://ssrana.in/posh-law/articles/calling-a-woman-ri-amounts-to-offence-of-insulting-her-modesty/