Using the phrase ‘lads’ at work could count as sex harassment, an employment tribunal has ruled, as a £95,000-a-year executive is in line for compensation.
The use of the noun in a mixed work force may be ‘unwanted conduct’ based on sex, a judge has said.
Such ‘casual use of gender-specific language’ might well be perceived as patronising by female members of staff, the panel warned.
The ruling came in the case of a high flying food executive who complained about her male boss’s use of the phrase ‘Lads, lads’ when discussing the performance of a colleague who was a woman.
Sally Ellis – a former executice at Cranswick Foods – said she was ‘annoyed’ with Matthew Briggs who she claimed was ‘insulting, rude and derogatory’.
While the tribunal found that the comments were ‘unwanted’ and ‘thoughtless’ it said that, in this case, they did not reach the threshold to ‘violate her dignity’.
But Employment Judge Sarah-Jane Davies said the fact that Mr Briggs did not intend to discriminate or cause offence ‘does not mean that such language might not be perceived in that way’.
However, the executive – who has dyslexia, ADHD and autism – is still in line for compensation after the tribunal found the company had discriminated against her and victimised her in the aftermath of her complaint.
Sally Ellis – a former executice at Cranswick Foods – said she was ‘annoyed’ with Matthew Briggs who she claimed was ‘insulting, rude and derogatory’
Miss Ellis complained about Mr Briggs’ use of the phrase ‘Lads, lads’ when discussing the performance of a colleague who was a woman.
The hearing in Leeds was told Miss Ellis was Commercial Controller at Cranswick Foods’s Yorkshire Baker plant when Mr Briggs was appointed Site Director and became her boss in June 2022.
She was involved in a dispute with one of her employees after which she raised a grievance about her treatment.
It’s claimed that in August 2022, Mr Briggs had been unhappy that a female member of staff had been unable to get a better price on a product.
‘[He] asked [Miss Ellis], “Is she [the female colleague] replying straightaway, lads, lads, not good enough, go again?”,’ the tribunal heard.
‘[Miss Ellis said she] found Mr Brigg’s assumption that they were not able to get better prices ‘off the lads’ insulting, rude and derogatory.
‘She pointed out that one of the people they were negotiating with was also a woman.’
At the tribunal Mr Briggs said ‘lads’ was a colloquial term he might use interchangeably with other non-gender words like ‘team’ or ‘squad.’
But the the panel found that this use of language was ‘unwanted’ by Miss Ellis ‘given her account of how it made her feel at the time, and that it was related to sex’.
‘While Mr Briggs may say that he used the word as a general term for a group of people, it is nonetheless a gender specific word for a group of male people.
‘The Tribunal found that asking whether a (female) negotiator had gone back to the client to say “lads, lads, not good enough, go again” did carry with it the implication that the people negotiating would be male, and that the female colleague was not being tough enough with them.’
The panel described ‘lads’ as ‘non complimentary use of gender specific language’.
The following month Miss Ellis claimed Mr Briggs also referred again to getting a ‘better price off the lads’ when discussing bacon prices.
‘This annoyed her,’ the tribunal heard. ‘She wanted to shout that women can negotiate too.’
At the tribunal Mr Briggs said ‘lads’ was a colloquial term he might use interchangeably with other non-gender words like ‘team’ or ‘squad. (file image)
Despite Mr Briggs’ denials he had said this, the panel ruled that he had and this too was ‘unwanted’ and related to sex.
The tribunal heard that after her October grievance – which contained a series of other allegations about her treatment – Miss Ellis was suspended and eventually fired.
She successfully sued for disability discrimination, victimisation and unfair dismissal for the way the company handled the disciplinary process and for her sacking.
However, her sex discrimination claim in relation to the ‘lads’ comments were not upheld.
‘Mr Briggs accepted that he used the word “lads”…and that this was language he used more generally,’ the tribunal said.
‘We also accepted her evidence about how this made her feel.
‘The fact that Mr Briggs tries to treat people fairly and the fact that he did not intend to discriminate or cause offence does not mean that such language might not be perceived in that way.
‘The complaint was not false.’
However, the panel said that although it was ‘unwanted conduct related to sex’ the phrase did not amount to sex harassment in this case.
‘[Miss Ellis] was annoyed by it at the time. It made her feel that Mr Briggs was implying that she did not know how to negotiate, and that he thought that women were not tough enough negotiators.
‘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 Mr Briggs intended it.
‘However, the Tribunal found that it did not meet the threshold of violating [Miss Ellis’s] dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, offensive, degrading or humiliating environment for her.
‘She 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.’
