Describing someone as ‘coloured’ is not racist, even if it does offend people of colour, an employment judge has ruled. 

A tribunal concluded that although the term is ‘generally considered to be old fashioned’ and potentially ‘offensive’, it is 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-heritage admin worker Amy Reeves, who heard a colleague describe two people as ‘coloured’ while working in the office.

When nothing was done about the remarks, she claimed she was the victim of discrimination and racial harassment, but an employment tribunal ruled that the colleague did ‘not intend’ for the term to be ‘offensive’.

It found that Ms Reeves had not been the victim of any kind of harassment and that it was not ‘reasonable’ for her to be ‘upset’ by the use of the word, despite conceding that it could be ‘offensive’.

Ms Reeves, who is of British and Jamaican heritage, was employed by construction and housing company Kier Ltd in Sheffield, Yorkshire, as a commercial administrator from November 2024.

She said that on her very 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 messaged someone – though that person was not identified – saying: ‘There were some discriminatory comments in the office yesterday that bothered me and I’m not really sure how to approach it, I’m not upset as I think people just need to be educated better (it’s a 100% white British office).’

In March 2025, Ms Reeves said that a project manager for the company, Wayne Pashley, had referred to ‘two coloured ladies outside’ when describing two women who were stood outside the office.

She said Mr Pashley was ‘visibly startled’ when he saw that she could hear him and added that ‘she found this language offensive and upsetting’.

The ruling came in the case of mixed-heritage admin worker Amy Reeves, who heard a colleague describe two people as ‘coloured’ while working in the office

The term ‘coloured’ was historically used to describe people of African descent during periods of racial segregation in America and is now regarded as a controversial and often racist term.

In 2015 actor Benedict Cumberbatch faced a backlash for his use of the word and some commentators have even called for its use to be criminalised.

The term being used in the office led Ms Reeves to report it to her manager, saying that ‘racial discrimination’ was ‘something she was struggling with’ at work.

She said: ‘Site staff have said “two coloured ladies”, “old black ladies” and quite frequently laughed at non-English last names.

‘It’s making me really uncomfortable and out of place, I’m wondering if you could address these issues? 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 she had ‘settled some tension in the office’ and did not ‘want to start it back up again’.

She did however tell him that she personally preferred people not use the term ‘black’, even if it was simply used in a descriptive way, though she did say that many people of colour do not mind.

After this exchange, Ms Reeves continued to experience what she said was ‘discriminatory behaviour, microaggressions, and a pattern of exclusion’ and ultimately filed a grievance within the company in May 2025.

She said she wanted to work ‘100% remotely’ while it was dealt with and went off sick from stress in the same month.

She remained off sick until July when she resigned from the company with immediate effect, citing Kier’s ‘failure to protect her from discrimination’.

The grievance was investigated in Ms Reeves’s absence but her concerns were not upheld when it concluded in October 2025 – by which time she had already filed her claims with an employment tribunal in Sheffield.

However her complaints of harassment related to race, victimisation and direct race discrimination were each dismissed by Employment Judge Kirsty Ayre, despite admitting the term ‘coloured’ was a ‘racially slanted adverse comment’.

Referring to the use of the word, the judge concluded: ‘In early March 2025 Wayne Pashley referred to “two coloured ladies outside’ and was visibly startled when he saw (Ms Reeves) nearby.

‘We find that Mr Pashley did use those words… (and) we have no hesitation in concluding that the use of the word “coloured” was related to race, as colour falls within the definition of race.

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

‘Rather, he used the words to describe women who were stood outside the office.

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

‘We accept, on balance, that (Ms Reeves) was upset by the comment and that it had the proscribed effect on her.

‘It prompted her to approach (her manager) on March 4 to raise concerns, which is an indication that she was upset by it.

‘We find, however, that in all the circumstances, it was not reasonable for the comment to have that effect.

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

‘The word was therefore used as a descriptor. We accept that the word is generally considered to be old fashioned and can be offensive.

‘However, we take account the comment (from another hearing) that “not every racially slanted adverse comment or conduct may constitute the violation of a person’s dignity”.’

Speaking after the judgement, Ms Reeves said: ‘Honestly the whole thing baffled me.

‘I got called sensitive for highlighting racist employees.

‘I want to appeal her judgement but I honestly don’t think my nervous system can handle it.

‘The judicial system severely failed me on that day.

‘It doesn’t make sense.’