Use of ‘coloured’ was not discriminatory, tribunal rules

Written by

10/07/2026

Use of ‘coloured’ was not discriminatory, tribunal rules

An admin worker who heard a colleague describe people as ‘coloured’ has lost claims for discrimination and racial harassment.

Amy Reeves, who is of mixed British and Jamaican heritage, worked as a commercial administrator for property firm Kier from November 2024. She resigned in July 2025.

She told the tribunal that on her first day in the job, she had heard a colleague describe one of the company’s tenants as a “little old black lady”. She had informed another colleague that she considered these comments “discriminatory” and that “I think people just need to be educated better”.

In March 2025, a project manager for the company referred to the “two coloured ladies outside” when describing two women standing outside the office.

Reeves also listed a number of further incidents where colleagues had mocked non-English names and had started whispering about her when a contractor asked about her.

She added that her colleague had looked “visibly startled” when he realised that she was nearby after referring to the “coloured ladies”.

Race discrimination

Hotel manager with no right to work wins discrimination claims

Rail worker who found EDL leaflet was racially harassed

After the incident, she sent a message to her operations manager, saying: “Site staff have said ‘two coloured ladies’, ‘old black ladies’ and quite frequently laugh at non-English last names. It’s making me really uncomfortable and out of place, I’m wondering if you could address these issues? Let me know your thoughts.”

The manager sent a follow-up to the team encouraging them to refresh their training on respect in the office, and reminding them to call out disrespectful behaviour.

There was a further incident where she had claimed an Eid event was being held on the wrong date and reorganised it despite it then clashing with a client date.

The tribunal found that Reeves often misinterpreted comments “in a way which many people would not have interpreted”.

“For example, genuine attempts by HR to support her during her sickness absence were interpreted by the claimant as harassment,” said Employment Judge Kirsty Ayre.

“It is in our view more likely that, rather than [her colleague] laughing at an individual’s name, the claimant interpreted a comment about someone’s name as that person laughing at the name.”

Reeves had also posted in the company’s racial inclusion network forum that she felt “a bit isolated” and did not find the company to be very racially diverse.

In May 2025, she opened a grievance with the HR team, stating she wanted to “formally raise concerns regarding ongoing discriminatory behaviour, microaggressions, and a pattern of exclusion I have experienced with my team”.

She was signed off sick on 2 May and her manager sent her a text message asking if she was OK, and whether she had time for a “welfare check”, as advised by HR.

She responded that she did not want a welfare check while off work with work-related stress. HR then followed up asking if she needed any further assistance.

Two weeks later, Reeves asked to be transferred out of her current team and for an update on her grievance. She returned to work soon after on a remote basis, where she complained that work tasks were being deleted from the OneNote system by a former friend who had blocked her on social media.

She then sent an email to HR saying she had a “complete loss of confidence in the company’s ability to protect my wellbeing by ensuring a psychologically safe working environment”.

She was again signed off with stress and stated she would open a case with Acas early conciliation.

The grievance investigation continued, concluding in October 2025 after she had already filed a tribunal claim. It did not uphold her complaints.

Judge Ayre ruled that comments about “coloured people” could be taken as descriptors. She said: “We accept that the word is generally considered to be old-fashioned and can be offensive.

“However, we take into account the comment [from another hearing] that not every racially slanted adverse comment or conduct may constitute the violation of a person’s dignity”.

She added that Kier appeared to “take diversity and inclusion seriously” and all claims of discrimination and harassment were dismissed.

Legal comment

Sarah Goldie, HR consultant in the employment team at Birketts, said that context was key to the judge’s findings.

“On the face of it, the outcome seems difficult to reconcile with the Judge’s acceptance that the claimant was upset by the term ‘two coloured ladies’, and that the phrase was outdated and capable of causing offence.

“A key factor, however, was the context. The tribunal found that the phrase was used descriptively, rather than a racial slur, and it was a single remark, not intended to cause offence.

“Words are powerful. Given the long-standing history of racism, that spans centuries and still manifests today, when those words relate to race, these can be evocative, provocative, and offensive.

“Language evolves over time and terms that may once have been commonplace can become increasingly offensive, even when used in ignorance rather than prejudice.”

Goldie added that there were still clear lessons for employers around language.

“EDI education is essential, set clear expectations around respectful and inclusive behaviour, and create environments where conversations about race can take place openly and constructively.

“Engaging colleagues with lived experience remains one of the most effective ways of building understanding, challenging assumptions, and fostering a culture of belonging.”