Describing someone as ‘coloured’ isn’t necessarily racist, employment judge rules

A judge has ruled that using the word “colored” to describe a person may offend people of different races but is not necessarily racist.

The decision came after managerial worker Amy Reeves, of mixed British and Jamaican descent, heard a colleague describe the two men as “niggers” while working at construction and housing company Kier Ltd in Sheffield, Yorks.

Nothing was done about the comment and Ms Reeves continued to claim that she was the victim of discrimination and racial harassment.

But Employment Judge Kirsty Ayre ruled Ms Reeves’ colleague “did not intend” the term to be “offensive”.

The judge said Ms Reeves was not the victim of any abuse and it was “unreasonable” for her to be “upset” by the use of the word.

Ms Reeves has been employed as commercial manager at Kier Ltd. from November 2024.

He said that on his first day on the job, a colleague described one of the company’s tenants as a “little old black lady.”

The next day, Ms Reeves texted someone – but the person was not identified – to say: “There were some discriminatory comments in the office yesterday that made me uncomfortable and I really don’t know how to approach it. I’m not sorry because I think people need to be better trained (it’s a 100% white British office).”

In March 2025, Ms. Reeves said the company’s project manager, Wayne Pashley, referred to “two colored women outside” when describing two women standing outside the office.

He said he was “visibly surprised” when he realized Mr Pashley could hear him, adding that he “found the language offensive and upsetting”.

The term “colored” has historically been used to refer to people of African descent during periods of racial segregation in America and is now considered a controversial and often racist term.

In 2015, actor Benedict Cumberbatch received backlash for using this word.

The comment used in the office led Ms. Reeves to describe the behavior to her manager, saying that “racial discrimination” was “something she struggles with” at work.

She said: “Site staff called ‘two-coloured ladies’, ‘old black ladies’ and often laughed at non-English surnames.

“This really bothers me and makes me feel out of place. I wonder if you can solve these problems? Let me know your thoughts.”

The manager offered to say something a few days later, saying he had missed her message, but Ms. Reeves told him not to because by then he had “relieved some tensions in the office” and “didn’t want to start it over again.”

However, he said he personally prefers people not use the term “black” even if it is used in a simply descriptive way, but many people of color don’t care.

Following this meeting, Ms. Reeves continued to experience what she described as “discriminatory behavior, microaggressions, and a pattern of exclusion,” eventually filing an internal complaint in May 2025.

He said he wanted to work “100 percent remotely” while the issue was sorted out, and that same month he fell ill from stress.

He remained ill until July, when he promptly resigned from the company, citing Kier’s “failure to protect him against discrimination”.

The complaint was investigated in Ms Reeves’ absence, but her concerns were not acknowledged when it concluded in October 2025. On this date he lodged his applications with an employment tribunal in Sheffield.

But each of her complaints of race-related harassment, victimization and outright racial discrimination were dismissed by Employment Judge Kirsty Ayre, despite accepting that the term “coloured” was a “racially biased negative interpretation”.

Referring to the use of the word, the judge concluded: “In early March 2025, Wayne Pashley referred to ‘two black women outside’ and was visibly startled when he saw her. [Ms Reeves] soon.

“We see Mr. Pashley using these words… [and] Since color falls within the definition of race, we have no hesitation in concluding that the use of the word “colored” is related to race.

“We also find that Mr. Pashley did not intend to infringe by using the word ‘coloured’. [Ms Reeves’s] You may not create a degrading, hostile, humiliating, humiliating or offensive environment for him/her.

“Rather, he used these words to describe the women standing outside the office.

“We therefore considered whether the comment had the prohibited effect. [Ms Reeves] and, if so, whether it is reasonable in the circumstances for it to have that effect.

“On balance, we accept that: [Ms Reeves] He was sorry for the comment and said it had a forbidden effect on him.

“He encouraged her to approach [her manager] She expressed her concerns on March 4, which is an indication that she was upset about this.

“However, we find that it is not reasonable for the comment to have this effect under all the circumstances.

“This was a one-off comment and was not directed at anyone.” [Ms Reeves] and is used to describe two people.

“This word has therefore been used as a descriptor. We recognize that this word is generally considered old-fashioned and can be offensive.

“However, we take your comment into consideration” [from another hearing] ‘Not every negative comment or behavior towards racism can constitute a violation of a person’s dignity.'”

Speaking after the verdict, Ms Reeves said: “I’m surprised by the whole thing, to be honest.

“I was sensitive in highlighting racist employees.

“I want to appeal his decision, but honestly I don’t think my nervous system can handle it.

“The judicial system seriously failed me that day.

“This doesn’t make any sense.”