ABERDEEN, SCOTLAND / RankWire.AI / – A Scottish employment tribunal awarded former waiter Raymond Joseph £5,469.04 after establishing that racial harassment occurred at a PizzaExpress restaurant. During a dispute in April 2025, a colleague repeatedly called Joseph an American and a “Yank,” and also told him to leave and go back to his country. Employment Judge Melanie Sangster determined that these comments were directly related to nationality. The ruling considered the repeated remarks, their public setting, and their impact on Joseph.
Joseph began employment at the Union Square location in Aberdeen in September 2024, typically working between 20 and 22 hours weekly. On April 8, 2025, Joseph and fellow waiter Michael Tortolano managed a busy shift together. An argument erupted amidst the pressure of serving customers, with Tortolano telling Joseph that nobody liked him, referencing his American nationality and using the word “Yank.” In response, Joseph retaliated with insults, including calling Tortolano a “bald loser.”
Later during the same shift, Tortolano repeated the nationality-based comments. Portions of the altercation were heard by customers and others present. Joseph testified that these remarks caused him hurt and humiliation. He submitted a written account to a manager that same day and continued working. The tribunal found that the exchange satisfied the legal criteria for harassment based on race. Under the Equality Act 2010, race encompasses nationality, citizenship, and ethnic or national origins.
Compensation Recognizes Emotional Distress
The tribunal ordered PizzaExpress to pay £5,000 for injury to Joseph’s feelings, placing this within the middle of the lower Vento compensation range. Courts utilize this framework when evaluating emotional distress in discrimination cases. An additional £469.04 was awarded as interest, calculated at an 8% annual rate over 428 days. The tribunal found no evidence of separate financial loss related to the harassment, as Joseph continued working without seeking medical treatment.
Management launched an investigation into the workplace incident on May 20, roughly six weeks after it took place. The tribunal described this delay as unreasonable but found no unlawful intent behind it. Tortolano later admitted the allegations during a disciplinary hearing. As a result, management deemed his conduct gross misconduct and issued a final written warning, considering his admission, remorse, and disciplinary history. The company also reviewed separate allegations concerning Joseph’s behavior, access to information, and workplace communication.
Other Claims Rejected at Hearing
A manager determined that Joseph engaged in misconduct and dismissed him without notice on June 20, 2025. The findings included his behavior during the argument, a separate inappropriate comment, and unauthorized access to confidential company information. Specifically, it was found that Joseph sent company data to his personal email. Joseph denied these allegations and did not appeal his dismissal. The tribunal later concluded that misconduct was solely responsible for his removal from the restaurant.
Joseph also filed claims of victimisation, protected disclosures, and automatically unfair dismissal. All these claims were dismissed by the tribunal. While some of his disclosures were protected by law, the tribunal found no causal link between those disclosures and the management decisions in question. The Aberdeen hearing lasted seven days across April and May 2026. The judgment was issued on June 10, with the tribunal ruling in favor of Joseph only on the racial harassment claim.