In our recent article, ‘When words become risk: the modern expectations for workplace language’, we highlighted how employment tribunals are increasingly prepared to scrutinise everyday language at work. Not just the overtly offensive but also the subtle words and phrases that shape (or reflect) workplace culture.
To continue the conversation, we launched a LinkedIn poll series asking users for their views on expressions that may be encountered in the workplace. The polls explored professionals’ instinctive reactions to email greetings, ‘pet names’ and gendered language in the workplace.
The results reflected the often divided opinions that exist in workplaces about what is, and is not, acceptable.
The findings
1: What is your instinctive reaction to the phrase “Hi gents” used in a professional email sent to a mixed-gender team?
The results:
- Acceptable – feels normal: 3%
- A bit outdated but harmless: 29%
- Uncomfortable – exclusionary: 30%
- Inappropriate – not acceptable: 38%
What might once have been seen as polite shorthand in professional communications is now viewed by most participants as exclusionary or unacceptable.
The use of “Hi gents” in an email to a whole department (a mixed-gender group) was one of the facts considered in the Scott v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance case. Although the Tribunal found this language to be “unwise”, it was not in itself found to be an act of sex discrimination. The sender stated he only had in mind the named male recipients and was simply copying in the rest of the team. However, in other circumstances this could potentially amount to discrimination or harassment based on sex or gender reassignment.
2: How do you feel about being called things like “love”, “dear” or “darling” at work?
The results:
- Fine – warm and friendly: 11%
- Acceptable if mutual/informal: 46%
- Uncomfortable/patronising: 21%
- Unacceptable – not appropriate: 21%
For the majority of participants, such language could be acceptable in informal or mutual contexts, reflecting familiarity and close friendships between staff in some workplaces. However, 42% of participants found the terms either uncomfortable/patronising or unacceptable/inappropriate. Tone, mutuality, and context will be highly significant factors as to whether employees find such language acceptable.
Employers must also remain mindful that claims for harassment based on sex or any other protected characteristic, cannot be defended simply by confirming that no offence was intended. A throwaway remark or addressing a colleague inappropriately may amount to harassment if its effect, rather than the speaker’s intention, causes offence.
3: In a professional context, how do you feel about a group of adult women being referred to as “the girls”?
The results:
- Fine – informal and familiar: 2%
- Depends on tone/setting: 33%
- Not ideal/slightly dismissive: 30%
- Definitely inappropriate: 35%
This poll showed a clear consensus: referring to professional women as “girls” was not considered “fine” by the participants. Only a third of participants felt that tone or setting could create an appropriate context for the use of this phrase.
What the results tell us
The participants were divided on whether the phrases were harmless or unacceptable. As expected, context mattered. However, it is worth noting that the surrounding circumstances that may feel acceptable to one individual may not automatically feel acceptable to another.
Final thoughts
For employers, the message is clear: the words used in emails, meetings, and informal exchanges are impactful. They influence, and are influenced by, the culture of the workplace and can have legal consequences if they contribute to a perception of exclusion or bias. Saying the wrong thing, even casually or out of habit or with a genuine belief that the phrase was inoffensive, can give rise to grievances, strained relationships, and even legal claims.
Employers cannot expect employees to “get it right” every time. But they can provide training and guidance on inclusive communication, encourage feedback where language causes discomfort, and review internal communications policies to avoid outdated terminology.
Words carry risk, and in modern workplaces, it pays to choose them carefully.
Authors
Constance Shaw
Associate
Ed Livingstone
Legal Director
Lauren Webb
Senior Marketing and Communications ManagerRelated legal expertise
Connect with us
