How far can ‘banter’ go before it becomes harassment and can an employer really name their business something guaranteed to feature in tribunal headlines?

What happened?

The case of Ms S Sinclair v More Blacks, More Dogs, More Irish Ltd and Mr Soliman (ET Glasgow, 7 August 2025) almost reads like satire. The company’s name, adapted from a controversial phrase once daubed on exclusionary pub signs, was already questionable. But inside the workplace, the tone went downhill fast.

The Tribunal heard that the director made repeated references to Ms Sinclair’s race and appearance, calling her names linked to ethnic identity and physical traits, such as ‘Aryan’, and making comments comparing ‘white people’ to others in terms that could only be described as overtly racist. He also made remarks about women and her sex that were demeaning and wholly inappropriate in a work setting.

Ms Sinclair challenged this behaviour and was dismissed shortly after, without any semblance of fair process. The employer claimed it was all harmless humour and mutual joking. The Tribunal, unsurprisingly, disagreed.

What did the Tribunal decide and why?

The Tribunal found harassment on the grounds of race and sex under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. It emphasised that intention is irrelevant, it is the effect on the recipient that counts. Even if the speaker believes their remarks are ‘banter’, that belief does not make them lawful.

The jokes and comments created a degrading and humiliating environment. The Tribunal noted that Ms Sinclair was visibly upset and that the language used would have offended any reasonable person.

Her unfair dismissal claim also succeeded. There was no fair reason, no proper investigation, and no process whatsoever. The judge described the employer’s approach as cavalier – something closer to a pub argument than a lawful termination.

Ms Sinclair was awarded £2,000 for injury to feelings (in the Vento lower band), plus interest, notice pay, and compensatory awards. It was not the size of the payout that mattered, but the clarity of the message: ‘banter’ is not a shield.  It is evidence.

What can leaders learn?

‘It was a joke’ is not a defence; it is an admission that you knew what you said.

Intent does not matter. Impact does.

Humour that divides teams or alienates individuals is not ‘team-building’ – it is litigation fuel.

Managers must call it out immediately, even when it is awkward.

What is next: third-party harassment

From 26th October 2024, employers have a proactive duty under the Worker Protection Act 2023 to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment.

Next up, the Employment Rights Bill (2025) is set to reintroduce employer liability for third-party harassment, expected around October 2026.  That means if a customer, supplier, or contractor harasses an employee, your business could be on the hook unless you can show you took all reasonable steps to prevent it.

In short, ‘the customer is not always right’ – and soon, that might be legally official.

Checklist for leaders

• Refresh anti-harassment policies – include examples of ‘banter’.
• Train managers to intervene in real time.
• Include conduct clauses for third parties in contracts.
• Review reporting channels – make it safe to speak up.
• Check your workplace chat culture: jokes age badly in tribunals.

If a customer or a colleague said something like that in your workplace tonight, would you stop it before the Tribunal does?

Tribunal fees: not coming back any time soon

On 9th October 2025, Lord Chancellor David Lammy confirmed the Government will not revive employment tribunal (ET) fees.  A decision that speaks volumes about access to justice and budgets alike.

In 2017 the Supreme Court killed off ET fees for breaching the right of access to justice. Since then, several governments have flirted with the idea of bringing them back.  Most recently, a ‘modest’ £55 charge was floated earlier this year. But the Labour Government has now parked the idea. Lammy says fairness, not finance, must guide the system.