The Employment Tribunal has dismissed claims of discrimination and racial harassment brought by Amy Reeves, a former commercial administrator of mixed British and Jamaican heritage, against her former employer, property firm Kier. Reeves, who was employed from November 2024 until her resignation in July 2025, alleged a series of incidents, including the use of racially insensitive language and other microaggressions, created a hostile work environment. However, the tribunal concluded that many of her interpretations of events were not aligned with how an objective person would perceive them, ultimately ruling in favour of Kier.
Chronology of Workplace Incidents and Escalation
Amy Reeves commenced her role as a commercial administrator at Kier in November 2024. Her tenure was marked by a series of events that she perceived as discriminatory, leading to her eventual grievance and tribunal claim.
Early Incidents and Initial Concerns:
On her very first day, Reeves reported hearing a colleague refer to one of the company’s tenants as a “little old black lady.” She immediately conveyed her discomfort to another colleague, stating her belief that such comments were discriminatory and indicative of a need for better education within the workplace. This initial experience set the tone for her perception of the company culture regarding race and inclusion.
A more significant incident occurred in March 2025. Reeves recounted how a project manager, when referring to two women outside the office, described them as the “two coloured ladies.” She noted that the colleague appeared “visibly startled” upon realising her proximity, suggesting an awareness that the term might be inappropriate. This incident prompted Reeves to take formal action, sending a message to her operations manager. Her message explicitly detailed the use of terms like “two coloured ladies” and “old black ladies,” alongside frequent instances of colleagues laughing at non-English surnames. Reeves expressed feeling “really uncomfortable and out of place” and sought her manager’s intervention to address these issues.
In response, the operations manager issued a follow-up communication to the team, urging them to refresh their training on respect in the office and reinforcing the importance of calling out disrespectful behaviour. This action, while a step towards addressing her concerns, did not fully alleviate Reeves’ growing unease.
Beyond these direct racial comments, Reeves also cited other incidents contributing to her feeling of exclusion. These included multiple occasions where colleagues reportedly mocked non-English names. She also claimed that colleagues had begun whispering about her when a contractor inquired about her, further contributing to her sense of isolation. Another contentious incident involved an Eid event, which Reeves claimed was scheduled on the wrong date. She took it upon herself to reorganise the event, inadvertently causing it to clash with a client appointment, an action that was later scrutinised by the tribunal.
Formal Grievance and Subsequent Absence:
The cumulative effect of these incidents led Reeves to express her feelings of isolation within the company’s racial inclusion network forum, noting a lack of racial diversity. By May 2025, her concerns escalated into a formal grievance with the HR team. In her complaint, she articulated a desire to “formally raise concerns regarding ongoing discriminatory behaviour, microaggressions, and a pattern of exclusion I have experienced with my team.”
Shortly after filing her grievance, Reeves was signed off sick on 2 May, citing work-related stress. Her manager contacted her with a text message, checking on her well-being and offering a “welfare check,” as advised by HR. Reeves declined the welfare check, explaining that she did not wish to engage in work-related discussions while off sick due to work-related stress. HR subsequently followed up, offering further assistance.
Two weeks later, Reeves requested a transfer out of her current team and an update on her grievance. She returned to work soon after on a remote basis. During this period, she reported that work tasks were being deleted from the OneNote system by a former friend who had blocked her on social media. This added another layer of frustration and distrust to her experience.
Feeling a profound lack of support, Reeves then sent an email to HR, expressing 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 indicated her intention to initiate a case with Acas early conciliation, a pre-tribunal process for dispute resolution. The internal grievance investigation continued throughout this period, eventually concluding in October 2025, after Reeves had already filed her tribunal claim. The investigation ultimately did not uphold her complaints.
The Tribunal’s Findings and Legal Rationale
Employment Judge Kirsty Ayre presided over the tribunal, which meticulously reviewed the evidence presented by both Amy Reeves and Kier. The tribunal’s findings centred on the interpretation of the alleged incidents and the company’s overall approach to diversity and inclusion.
A significant aspect of the tribunal’s decision was its finding that Reeves frequently misinterpreted comments “in a way which many people would not have interpreted.” Judge Ayre cited examples, noting that “genuine attempts by HR to support her during her sickness absence were interpreted by the claimant as harassment.” Similarly, regarding the alleged mocking of non-English names, the judge found it “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.” This highlights a key challenge in discrimination cases: distinguishing between perceived intent and actual intent, and the objective reasonableness of a claimant’s interpretation.
Regarding the use of the term “coloured people,” Judge Ayre acknowledged its dated nature and potential to cause offence. She stated, “We accept that the word is generally considered to be old-fashioned and can be offensive.” However, the tribunal concluded that in the specific context presented, the comments about “coloured people” were intended as descriptors rather than as a racial slur. The ruling referenced a principle from another hearing, noting that “not every racially slanted adverse comment or conduct may constitute the violation of a person’s dignity.” This legal nuance is critical, suggesting that while a term may be imperfect or even outdated, its use does not automatically constitute unlawful harassment or discrimination unless it meets a higher threshold of intent to violate dignity or create a hostile environment.
Furthermore, the tribunal found that Kier appeared to “take diversity and inclusion seriously.” This assessment of the employer’s commitment to fostering an inclusive environment likely played a role in the dismissal of the claims. The judge’s overall ruling led to the dismissal of all claims of discrimination and harassment brought by Reeves against Kier.
Legal Commentary and Expert Insights
The tribunal’s decision, particularly concerning the use of the term “coloured,” has prompted discussion among legal and HR professionals. Sarah Goldie, an HR consultant in the employment team at Birketts, offered a legal perspective on the judgment, emphasising the critical role of context.
Goldie acknowledged the initial difficulty in reconciling the outcome with the judge’s acceptance that the term “two coloured ladies” was outdated and capable of causing offence, and that the claimant was genuinely upset by it. However, she underscored the tribunal’s reliance on context as a decisive factor. “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,” Goldie explained.
This distinction between descriptive use and malicious intent is paramount in employment law. Goldie elaborated on the power of words, especially concerning race, given the “long-standing history of racism that spans centuries and still manifests today.” She highlighted how such words can be “evocative, provocative, and offensive.” Furthermore, Goldie pointed out the dynamic nature of language: “Language evolves over time and terms that may once have been commonplace can become increasingly offensive, even when used in ignorance rather than prejudice.” This underscores the challenge for employers to keep pace with societal changes in acceptable language.
Despite the tribunal’s specific findings in this case, Goldie stressed that there are still clear lessons for employers regarding language and workplace conduct. She advocated for robust Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) education, the establishment of clear expectations for respectful and inclusive behaviour, and the creation of environments where open and constructive conversations about race can occur. “Engaging colleagues with lived experience remains one of the most effective ways of building understanding, challenging assumptions, and fostering a culture of belonging,” Goldie concluded, pointing towards proactive strategies for fostering genuinely inclusive workplaces.
Broader Context: The Evolving Landscape of Workplace Discrimination
The case of Amy Reeves versus Kier Ltd offers a poignant illustration of the complexities inherent in modern workplace discrimination claims. It touches upon crucial aspects of employment law, the nuances of language, and the subjective experience of microaggressions.
Defining Discrimination and Harassment:
Under the UK’s Equality Act 2010, direct discrimination occurs when an employer treats an employee less favourably because of a protected characteristic, such as race. Racial harassment, on the other hand, is defined as unwanted conduct related to race that has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for them. The tribunal’s ruling in Reeves’ case hinged on whether the incidents, particularly the use of "coloured," met this threshold for harassment, or if they constituted less favourable treatment due to race. The judgment suggests that while the language was outdated, it did not, in the tribunal’s view, meet the legal definition of harassment in the specific context it was used.
The Challenge of Microaggressions:
Reeves’ grievance explicitly mentioned "microaggressions," a term widely used to describe subtle, often unintentional, expressions or actions that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to individuals based on their protected characteristics. While microaggressions can cause significant distress and contribute to a feeling of alienation, proving them to be legally actionable discrimination or harassment can be challenging. This case underscores the difficulty in translating subjective experiences of microaggressions into a legal claim, especially when the intent behind the comments is not deemed malicious by a court. Research consistently shows that employees from minority backgrounds disproportionately experience microaggressions, leading to higher stress levels and reduced job satisfaction. A 2022 report by the CIPD on diversity and inclusion found that a significant percentage of ethnic minority employees reported experiencing discrimination or harassment in the workplace, with many feeling that their concerns were not adequately addressed.
The Importance of a Psychologically Safe Environment:
Reeves’ statement about a “complete loss of confidence in the company’s ability to protect my wellbeing by ensuring a psychologically safe working environment” highlights a growing focus in modern workplaces. Psychological safety, where employees feel comfortable expressing concerns, making mistakes, and being themselves without fear of negative consequences, is increasingly recognised as vital for employee well-being and productivity. While Kier had diversity and inclusion initiatives, and its manager responded to Reeves’ initial complaint, the outcome of the tribunal suggests that the perception of psychological safety can diverge significantly between an employee and their employer, and ultimately, a legal body.
Employer Responsibilities and D&I Initiatives:
The tribunal’s finding that Kier "appeared to take diversity and inclusion seriously" is noteworthy. Many organisations invest in D&I training and initiatives to foster inclusive cultures. However, this case illustrates that having policies and offering training does not automatically inoculate an employer against claims, nor does it guarantee that all employees will feel fully included. The effectiveness of D&I efforts often lies in their consistent application, the genuine engagement of leadership, and the creation of clear, accessible channels for reporting concerns that are perceived as fair and responsive by employees. Regular, updated training on inclusive language and unconscious bias is crucial, as is fostering an environment where feedback, particularly from those with lived experience, is genuinely valued and acted upon. According to a 2023 McKinsey report, companies with diverse workforces are significantly more likely to outperform their peers, underscoring the business imperative of effective D&I.
Implications for Employers and Employees
The tribunal’s decision in Amy Reeves v Kier Ltd carries several significant implications for both employers striving for inclusive workplaces and employees navigating perceived discrimination.
For Employers:
- Nuance in Language and Context: The case reinforces that while certain terms are outdated and can be offensive, their legal standing in a discrimination claim often depends on the context, intent, and frequency of use. Employers must be diligent in educating staff on appropriate language, making it clear that even unintentional use of potentially offensive terms can cause distress and erode trust, regardless of legal culpability.
- Robust D&I Training and Communication: Goldie’s advice to implement comprehensive EDI education and set clear expectations for respectful behaviour is paramount. This training should not just cover legal definitions but also foster empathy and understanding of how language impacts individuals. Open forums for discussing race and inclusion, potentially involving colleagues with lived experience, can bridge gaps in understanding.
- Effective Grievance Procedures: While Kier’s manager responded to Reeves’ initial complaint and a formal grievance investigation was conducted, the employee’s "complete loss of confidence" suggests a breakdown in trust. Employers must ensure their grievance processes are not only legally sound but also perceived as fair, thorough, and supportive by employees. Clear communication about the investigation’s progress and findings is essential.
- Proactive Welfare Support: HR’s attempts at a "welfare check" were interpreted as harassment by Reeves, highlighting the delicate balance required when supporting employees on sick leave, particularly for work-related stress. Training for managers on sensitive communication during such times is vital.
For Employees:
- Documentation is Key: Employees who believe they are experiencing discrimination or harassment should meticulously document every incident, including dates, times, specific words used, witnesses, and their immediate emotional response. This detailed record strengthens any potential claim.
- Understanding Legal Thresholds: While personal offence is valid, proving legal discrimination or harassment requires meeting specific criteria under the Equality Act 2010. Not every uncomfortable or insensitive comment will legally constitute harassment, especially if it’s an isolated incident without malicious intent or a pattern of behaviour aimed at violating dignity.
- Utilising Internal Channels First: Exhausting internal grievance procedures is often a necessary step before escalating to external bodies like Acas or an Employment Tribunal. This allows the employer an opportunity to address the issues internally.
- Seeking Early Advice: Employees facing such situations should consider seeking advice from trade unions, Acas, or legal professionals early on to understand their rights and the strength of their potential claim.
In conclusion, the case of Amy Reeves and Kier Ltd serves as a stark reminder of the complexities inherent in fostering truly inclusive workplaces. While employers are expected to maintain environments free from discrimination, the legal interpretation of what constitutes harassment often depends on context, intent, and the objective impact of actions. The ongoing evolution of language and societal norms around race and inclusion means that continuous education, proactive dialogue, and robust, empathetic support systems remain essential for navigating these challenging dynamics successfully.
