Humour or Harassment? A £69k Lesson in Workplace Culture

February 11, 2026

What starts as ‘banter’ can very quickly become a Tribunal award with a £69,000 price tag. In CL v Mitie Limited, a female Security Officer working in a hospital found herself at the centre of a culture marked by exclusion, misogyny and racism, behaviour that managers repeatedly failed to challenge. The Tribunal concluded that the accumulation of sexist language, age‑related comments and an inadequate response created a hostile and degrading environment. The outcome serves as a clear reminder that employers cannot dismiss inappropriate conduct as humour, and that failing to act decisively carries significant financial and reputational consequences.

Background

The Claimant, CL, was employed as a Security Officer at Southampton University Hospital NHS Trust from July to November 2023. During this short period of employment, the Claimant was praised by management as being “excellent at her job” and particularly skilled at de-escalating volatile situations.

Throughout the Claimant’s employment, the Claimant was subjected to repeated sexist language. She was repeatedly insulted about her height, including being asked to pick up items from the floor because she was closer, and told to deal with a patient because she was “the same height as him”.

Younger male colleagues often referred to her as “Mummy”, a term they later attempted to justify as a compliment linked to her ability to defuse and de-escalate hostile situations. The Claimant also felt excluded by the team’s gendered language, with the predominantly male Security Guards greeting each other as “bro” and ending shifts with “goodbye gents”.

The Claimant raised concerns about a sexist culture with management in September 2023.

In November 2023, she formally escalated her concerns in a grievance to Ms Parmar, her manager. After doing so, the Claimant explained that she no longer felt able to return to the hospital. In response, Ms Parmer suggested redeployment to two vacant roles, neither of which the Claimant considered suitable. An email exchange followed in which the Claimant expressed her dissatisfaction, and Ms Parmar confirmed that no alternative opportunities were available and that returning to the hospital remained an option.

Feeling humiliated and unsupported, the Claimant resigned. The Claimant was then sent a letter inviting her to reconsider her resignation. Although she briefly withdrew her resignation, she ultimately resigned again after being told that she could still be required to take unpaid leave or move roles whilst her grievance was being investigated.

The Claimant lodged claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination on the grounds of age, race and sex, harassment related to age, race and sex, victimisation and whistleblowing detriments.

Tribunal Decision

The Claimant was successful in her claims of harassment related to sex, age and race.

The Tribunal found that calling the Claimant “Mummy” was related to both her age and sex and created a hostile or offensive environment for the Claimant.

The Tribunal determined that the Claimant was regularly ostracised, at least in part, because she was female and that the culture of the Claimant’s team was somewhat hostile to women and that the Claimant would have been more accepted within the team if she had been a man.

The Tribunal was also critical of management’s response to the Claimant’s grievance. In particular, during the grievance process, the Claimant was told that “men are men, and they do talk about this”. This comment was found to reinforce the Claimant’s claim for harassment and demonstrate a failure by the Respondent to take the Claimant’s complaints seriously.

The Claimant was awarded £68,885, including £28,200 for financial losses and £40,685 for injury to feelings.

Lessons for employers

Employers should take careful note of the Tribunal’s reminder that while workplaces do not need to be humour‑free zones, there is a clear line between light‑hearted exchanges and conduct that signals deeper disrespect. In this case, the volume and nature of the comments directed at the Claimant demonstrated a culture in which sexist attitudes were normalised and left unchallenged, ultimately contributing to a hostile environment. The judgment in this case sets out the importance of addressing inappropriate behaviour early, recognising when “banter” is masking discriminatory attitudes, and ensuring managers are equipped to respond decisively before workplace culture deteriorates into legal and financial risk.

How we can help

For further information, or to discuss the issues raised within this case, please contact us to speak to a member of our Employment Team.

Darren Smith
Partner, Employment
<script>
document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', function () {
  const deptEl = document.getElementById('acf-author-department');
  const department = deptEl?.dataset?.department;

  if (typeof gtag === 'function' && department) {
    gtag('set', { author_department: department });
  }
});


  window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
  const dept = document.getElementById("author-department")?.textContent?.trim();
  if (dept) {
    window.dataLayer.push({
      event: "authorDataReady",
      author_department: dept
    });
  }

</script>
View profileContact Us

This reflects the law and market position at the date of publication and is written as a general guide. It does not contain definitive legal advice, which should be sought in relation to a specific matter.

Latest Legal Insights