React Reasonably to Racism

April 2, 2026

Introduction

In Corby v ACAS, the Employment Tribunal considered whether ACAS had directly discriminated against or harassed the Claimant because of his philosophical beliefs. The Claimant, an ACAS conciliator, argued that his employer acted unlawfully after colleagues complained that several of his internal intranet posts were racist. Although the Tribunal accepted that his beliefs on race and racial equality were protected under the Equality Act 2010, it ultimately held that the claims were out of time and, even if they had been in time, they would have failed on their merits.

Background

In June 2021 Mr Corby, the Claimant, posted several items on the intranet discussing race, racial equality, wokeness, and social issues. The posts reflected his beliefs on race, and gender. One of which was a philosophical belief that society should focus on character rather than race which closely aligned to the teachings of Martin Luther King.

Four colleagues, none of whom had met him, found the posts offensive and submitted a formal collective grievance, alleging that his comments were intimidating, racist and bullying. ACAS managers who reviewed the posts did not personally find them offensive but recognised that the complainants were genuinely upset. To avoid further distress, ACAS asked the Claimant to remove the eight posts pending investigation.

A full grievance investigation was undertaken. The Claimant submitted a detailed written response vigorously denying all allegations and accusing the complainants of attempting to silence his protected beliefs. ACAS eventually concluded that there was no evidence of racism, harassment or misconduct on his part and dismissed the grievance. However, the complainants appealed and remained distressed by the posts. After the appeal was not upheld, ACAS decided that the posts should not be reinstated to avoid further disruption and maintain a harmonious workplace.

The Claimant believed this amounted to discrimination and harassment because of his protected beliefs. He first considered legal action in 2021 but did not submit a Tribunal claim for discrimination and harassment until September 2022.

Tribunal’s Decision

The Tribunal dismissed the claims in full and found that the claim had been brought out of time by several months; it was stated that the Claimant was an experienced conciliator and was fully aware of Tribunal time limits.

Direct discrimination

The Tribunal found that ACAS requesting the Claimant to remove his intranet posts was not direct discrimination. This is because the action ACAS took was not consequential to the Claimant’s beliefs, rather it was to manage the offence it caused other employees and therefore did not amount to discrimination. A comparator without those beliefs, who had posted material upsetting colleagues, would have been treated in the same way.

Harassment

The Claimant also claimed that he was harassed as he was told to remove the posts and was subject to investigation. The Tribunal did not see this as harassment; it was genuine management actions as grievances should be investigated.

The actions were genuine because:

These steps were linked to the employer’s obligations, not to hostility toward his beliefs.
A grievance process, even if uncomfortable, does not in itself amount to harassment.

Reason for employer’s actions

The Tribunal went on to consider the merits. It accepted that the posts were a manifestation of the Claimant’s protected beliefs. However, it found that ACAS did not act because of those beliefs.

The Tribunal felt that the employer was responding to a serious grievance raised by colleagues, the complainants were genuinely distressed, and ACAS had a duty to investigate and protect all employees. The actions taken were therefore driven by workplace concerns, not discriminatory motives.

Reasonableness of the response

The Tribunal held that ACAS acted reasonably and proportionately throughout.

It emphasised that:

Employers are entitled, and often required, to investigate allegations of racism.
The process was conducted fairly and sensitively.
The Claimant was not prevented from holding or expressing his beliefs generally.
The only restriction was the removal of specific posts that had caused distress.

Lessons for employers

This case demonstrates that employers must and can take complaints of racism seriously and respond in a structured and proportionate way, even where the underlying conduct involves protected beliefs.

At the same time, it reinforces that the protection of philosophical belief is not absolute. Employers can take reasonable steps to manage workplace conflict and maintain a respectful environment.

How we can help

For further information or to discuss issues relating to disciplinary investigations, or reviewing internal policies, 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 profile Contact Us

Theo Olanrewaju

View profile Contact 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.