Using the word ‘coloured’ to describe someone is not racist even if it does offend people of colour, judge rules

Describing someone as ‘coloured’ is not racist, even if it offends people of different races, an employment judge has ruled.

The court concluded that although the term was ‘generally thought to be old-fashioned’ and potentially ‘offensive’, it was not racist when used to simply ‘describe’ someone from an ethnic minority background as a ‘one-off comment’.

The ruling came in the case of mixed executive employee Amy Reeves, who overheard a colleague describe two people as “niggers” while working in the office.

When nothing was done about the remarks, he claimed he was the victim of discrimination and racial harassment, but an employment tribunal ruled his colleague had ‘not intended’ the term to be ‘offensive’.

The court found that it was not ‘reasonable’ to be ‘upset’ by the use of the word, although it accepted that Ms Reeves had not been the victim of any abuse and that it might have been ‘offensive’.

Ms Reeves, who is of British and Jamaican descent, has been employed as a commercial manager at construction and housing company Kier Ltd in Sheffield, Yorkshire, 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 (although this 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 this situation. I’m not upset because I think people need to be better trained (this is a 100% white British office).’

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

He said he was ‘visibly surprised’ to find that Mr Pashley could hear him, adding that he ‘found the language offensive and distressing’.

The term ‘coloured’ has historically been used to describe people of African descent during periods of apartheid in America and is now considered a controversial and often racist term.

In 2015, actor Benedict Cumberbatch faced backlash for using the word, with some commentators even calling for its use to be criminalized.

The term was used in the office, prompting Ms. Reeves to report this to her manager and say that “racial discrimination” was “something she struggled with” in the workplace.

He said: ‘Site staff called ‘bi-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 that 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.

After this meeting, Ms Reeves continued to experience what she described as ‘discriminatory behaviour, microaggressions and a pattern of exclusion’ and eventually lodged a complaint internally 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; At the time, he lodged his claims 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 colored women outside’ and was visibly startled when he saw (Ms Reeves) nearby.

‘We have established that Mr. Pashley used these words… (and) since color falls within the definition of race, we have no hesitation in concluding that the use of the word ‘coloured’ relates to race.

‘We also find that Mr Pashley did not intend to violate (Ms Reeves’s) dignity or create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for her by using the word ‘coloured’.

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

‘We therefore considered whether the comment had a prohibited effect on (Ms Reeves) and, if so, whether it was reasonable in the circumstances for it to have that effect.

‘We accept in every respect that Ms Reeves was distressed by this comment and that it had a prohibited effect on her.

‘This led him to approach his manager on 4 March to express his concerns, which is an indication that he was upset about this.

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

‘This was a one-off comment, was not directed at (Ms Reeves) and was used to describe two individuals.

‘Therefore the word was used as a descriptor. We acknowledge that this word is often considered old-fashioned and can be offensive.

‘However, we note the comment (at another hearing) that “not every negative racial comment or behavior 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 called sensitive for highlighting racist employees.

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

‘The judicial system seriously failed me that day.

‘This doesn’t make any sense.’