When words become risk: the modern expectations for workplace language

Recent press coverage of Employment Tribunal decisions has reignited discussions about language in the workplace.

Reports included discussion of Scott v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Ltd, in which a manager addressed a mixed-gender group of colleagues as “gents” in an internal email.

The Tribunal found this conduct to be “unwise” given he had copied the whole department to the email in question (describing the phrase as “an example of old fashioned language in a corporate environment that is unacceptable today”).  However, it was found not to be indicative of sex discrimination on the basis that the manager in question only had in mind the named male recipients, and was simply copying in the rest of the team.

The observations of the Tribunal reflect a broader trend of Tribunals examining the language used at work in the context of assessing claims of discrimination and harassment, and not just the obvious or offensive, but also the subtle signals that shape workplace culture.

For example, in Ellis v Cranswick Foods plc, the Tribunal found that the comment “Lads, lads. Not good enough, go again” when made to a female colleague was unwanted conduct related to sex (although it did not amount to harassment). The Tribunal could understand how this casual use of gender-specific language, in the context of suggesting that a female negotiator needed to go back to the client and try again, might well be perceived as patronising or implying that women were not tough enough negotiators, regardless of how the speaker intended it.  However, it did not meet the threshold of violating the claimant’s dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, offensive, degrading or humiliating environment for her (a requirement for a finding of harassment). This was because the Tribunal found the claimant did not in fact perceive it that way and it would not have been reasonable for her to do so. It was a lower level of conduct, involving the thoughtless use of a gender-specific word rather than anything more serious that might violate dignity or create that overall environment.

What is the difference between sex discrimination and harassment related to sex?

Direct sex discrimination occurs when someone is treated less favourably because of their sex.

Indirect sex discrimination occurs when a workplace rule, policy or practice which applies to everyone disproportionately disadvantages individuals of a specific sex, and the employer cannot objectively justify it.

Harassment related to sex occurs when unwanted conduct related to sex has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. Note this is not the same as sexual harassment.

Moving beyond intent

Despite the ultimate outcome in the Ellis case, the Tribunal made clear that even though speaker did not intend to discriminate or cause offence, it did not mean that such language might not be perceived in that way.

In law, words can amount to unlawful harassment without that being the intention of the person using them. That is because the definition of harassment includes within its remit the purpose or effect of unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic.

The excuse of “habit” or “no offence meant” is not a defence at law. A single incident (or comment) can be enough to constitute harassment.

Language flashpoints

The “gents” email appears to have resonated in the press, perhaps because of its familiarity. Many of us have used or heard similar phrases, particularly in informal or personal settings within the workplace. But even commonly used phrases such as these, which are said without the intention of harm, now carry risk for employers.

The following words or phrases have been held by Tribunals to amount to discrimination or harassment (albeit whether that is the case will depend on specific facts of each case, so it cannot be said that the use of these words will amount to discrimination or harassment in isolation):

• In Biggs v A Bilborough and Co Ltd , the tribunal made several observations regarding the use of language. In particular:
  • Describing the female claimant as “pushy” involved the use of sexist language as it was unlikely that a man displaying the same level of enthusiasm would be described in the same way.
  • An invitation to the claimant “to use her charms” could be a reference to gender.
  • References to being “overly dominant” and “incredibly ambitious” were negative statements about the claimant’s ambition, drive and hard work, which the Tribunal considered would not have been made about a man who wanted to progress within the business and worked hard to achieve that. It was not inappropriate, given the progression of men within the business and her length of service, for her to ask about her future and not an example of excessive ambition; instead her ambition was disparaged because she was a woman.
  • The Tribunal went on to note that the remarks could be viewed as being derogatory and stereotyping in relation to the claimant’s gender.
• In British Bung Manufacturing Company Ltd, the EAT upheld a Tribunal’s decision that an explicit remark made about a male employee’s baldness were harassment related to sex on the basis that baldness was much more prevalent in men than women (and so was a term inherently related to sex).
• In Nolan v Fairfield and another, the Tribunal found the comment (made in relation to stripping a bed) “it’s not my job to do it, it is a woman’s job” to be harassment related to sex.
• In Pereira v Wellington Antiques, the Tribunal found that asking the female claimant why she wanted to work, about her finances and about her husband amounted to harassment relating to sex on the basis that they were motivated by the claimant’s sex, were based on an outdated idea that men are the main breadwinners in a household and were not questions the speaker would have thought to ask to a man. 

Food for thought

Other common examples of language that might be interpreted as sex-based discrimination or harassment in the workplace (and so should be used with caution) include “Babe”, “love”, “darling”, and “sweetheart” (especially when not used with male colleagues). 

There is also language which reflects gender-based stereotypes including “You’re too emotional” (to a woman) and “Man up” or “Don’t be a girl” (to a man). Reinforcing stereotypes about emotional sensitivity, assertiveness, or abilities based on gender can amount to direct discrimination and/or harassment and create a hostile environment.

What this means for employers

Given the direction of travel of case law in this area, employers should think carefully about providing comprehensive training to employees (especially those in management positions) as to how language can, in some circumstances, amount to harassment or discrimination.

Internal communications, greetings, training materials and policies all reflect the culture of an organisation. Where gendered or outdated terminology is used as shorthand, it can undermine broader efforts to build a fair and respectful environment.  Even if it does not itself amount to unlawful conduct, unfortunate language can be drawn to an employment tribunal’s attention by an employee to invite the tribunal to infer unlawful discrimination in other acts or omissions.  

This is not about policing everyday speech or chasing perfection. But where a pattern of complaints emerges, or where commonly used or ‘house’ terminology clashes with an organisation’s values and commitments on diversity and inclusion, it may be time to act.

This is particularly the case for firms regulated by the FCA, which has recently confirmed that bullying and harassment is a matter of regulatory concern. In the foreword of its consultation paper on Tackling non-financial misconduct in financial services published on 2 July 2025, it warns that “one of the clearest warning signs of a failing culture is non-financial misconduct – behaviours such as bullying and sexual harassment – going unchallenged. Failure to tackle toxic behaviours…damages growth and enables financial misconduct. There is an important role for regulators to play in tackling these issues”.

Looking ahead

Language sets tone and can consequently reflect (or undermine) an organisation’s culture. As expectations evolve, language is likely to become a growing feature of employee relations issues, grievances and claims. The legal bar remains relatively high, but employers who ignore bad behaviour expose themselves to both legal and reputational (and potentially also regulatory) risk, even where liability does not follow.

---

Related News

When words become risk: what our polls reveal about workplace language

Articles 4 Sep 2025