Gender-Specific Language Could Be Considered Sex Harassment at Work

Published : June 20, 2025

A recent employment tribunal decision has highlighted the risks associated with gender-specific language in the workplace. In Miss Sally Ellis v Cranswick Foods Ltd, the tribunal examined whether a manager’s repeated use of the term “lads” to describe a mixed-gender team could amount to sex harassment at work.

Although the sex-based harassment claim was ultimately dismissed, the judgment sends a clear warning to employers. Casual, gendered terminology may constitute unwanted conduct related to sex, even where no offence was intended. The ruling also reaffirms the legal duties owed to neurodivergent employees, with the tribunal upholding claims for disability discrimination, victimisation, and unfair dismissal.

Below, we examine the background of the case and the tribunal’s assessment of the legal tests for workplace harassment. We also discuss what this decision means for language, conduct, and reasonable adjustments in the workplace.

If you have experienced sex harassment in the workplace and want help, contact us now. Redmans Solicitors are employment law specialists, and following a quick chat, we can provide expert advice.

To get started, please:

Background: Sally Ellis v Cranswick Foods Ltd

Miss Sally Ellis was a senior commercial controller at Cranswick’s Yorkshire Baker site. She began working for the company in 2018 and reported to Site Director Mr Matthew Briggs.

Miss Ellis had dyslexia, ADHD, and autism, all of which satisfied the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) definition of disability. These conditions were central in her claims, which included disability and sex discrimination, unfair dismissal, and sex harassment at work.

Problems initially arose in August 2022, when Miss Ellis found Mr Briggs’ choice of words to be offensive. Despite referring to a team that included a female colleague, he would often use the term “lads,” one time stating, “Is she replying straight away, lads, lads, not good enough, go again?”

Miss Ellis found this remark offensive, claiming it was “insulting, rude and derogatory.” This was particularly the case, given that the negotiating team included a female colleague. She believed that such terminology undermined women’s professional standing by implying that negotiation strength was inherently a male trait.

As a result, she lodged a formal complaint about the matter. However, rather than handling it appropriately, the company suspended her before eventually terminating her employment. 

Sex Harassment at Work: Gendered Language and the Law

Following the proceedings, the employment tribunal considered Mr Briggs’ language within the broader legal framework of the EqA 2010. Specifically, it examined whether the comments amounted to sex harassment at work.

Section 26 of the Act defines harassment as unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, in this case sex, which has the purpose or effect of violating an individual’s dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them.

In Miss Ellis’ case, the tribunal accepted that the use of the word “lads” was unwanted conduct related to sex. This was because, while the term was arguably colloquial, it remained a gender-specific word generally associated with men. Therefore, by referring to a mixed-gender group as “lads,” the tribunal found that Mr Briggs’ language could reasonably be perceived as gendered language that excluded female colleagues.

Mr Briggs argued that his use of the term “lads” could be interchanged with others, such as “team,” or “squad,” claiming the sex of his team didn’t impact his use of it. This justification, however, didn’t satisfy the tribunal. Employment Judge Sarah Jane Davies explained that while Mr Briggs may not have meant to offend, his choice of words could reasonably be seen as patronising or as perpetuating gender-based stereotypes.

Why the Sex Harassment in the Workplace Claim was Dismissed

Despite the above findings, the tribunal ultimately dismissed Miss Ellis’ sex-based harassment claim. While it found that Mr Briggs’ language was gendered and unwanted, it ruled that his conduct didn’t meet the threshold of violating her dignity or creating a hostile, degrading, or offensive working environment for her.

The tribunal went on to explain that Miss Ellis didn’t perceive the comments as sufficiently degrading at the time, and it wouldn’t have been reasonable for her to do so. It added, “It was a lower level of conduct, involving the thoughtless use of a gender-specific word rather than anything more serious that might violate dignity or create that overall environment.”

That being said, while the comments didn’t amount to sex harassment at work on this particular occasion, the tribunal was quick to caution against similar behaviour. It stated that regardless of Mr Briggs’ intentions, such conduct could be perceived as discriminatory or offensive. This is crucial, as similar conduct in the future, particularly when the impact is more serious, could amount to harassment relating to sex and lead to significant legal consequences.

Successful Claims: Disability Discrimination and Unfair Dismissal

Although the sex discrimination and harassment relating to sex claims were dismissed, Miss Ellis was successful in several other areas. The tribunal found that Cranswick Foods had failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments for Miss Ellis’ disabilities. This included mishandling internal procedures and disciplinary processes in ways that didn’t take into account her neurodivergence.

Cranswick attempted to have the claim struck out due to Miss Ellis’s conduct at the hearing, but this was rejected. The tribunal acknowledged that her behaviour during the proceedings related to her autism and ADHD.

The tribunal also ruled that Miss Ellis had been unfairly dismissed and victimised due to her complaints and protected characteristics. Therefore, while her specific claims of sex discrimination and sex harassment at work didn’t succeed, her successful claims of disability discrimination, victimisation, and unfair dismissal will now proceed to a remedy hearing to determine her compensation.

Faced Sex Harassment at Work? Consider Specialist Help

Following the Miss Sally Ellis v Cranswick Foods Ltd ruling, employees must understand what this case clarifies about workplace harassment. While Miss Ellis’ circumstances didn’t satisfy the laws on harassment, others who face similar conduct may.

Crucially, each matter will come down to whether there has been unwanted conduct concerning a protected characteristic and how this has impacted the individual. No two cases are the same, and it’s, therefore, advisable to seek specialist advice to understand whether you could be eligible to make a claim.

If you have been harassed in the workplace and want expert employment advice, contact Redmans Solicitors now. As sector specialists, we can analyse your circumstances, answer your queries, and discuss your possible next steps. All you have to do to get started is simply:

 

The information on this page is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.