The use of the word ‘gents’ is “not inclusive”, making it “unacceptable” in the modern workplace, a tribunal has ruled. A judge has suggested the term — a common shortening of ‘gentleman’ and often used to describe men’s toilets — is not suitable in today’s offices, saying it is “old fashioned”.
It came as female insurance company worker Elaine Scott sued for sex discrimination after she was included in group emails from her boss addressed to ‘Gents’. The tribunal criticised the use of the terms, but concluded it was “managerial incompetence”, not a breach of equality laws. Held in Liverpool, the tribunal heard Mrs Scott began working for Royal and Sun Alliance’s cash management department in 2015.
In September 2022, she was told she was at risk of redundancy during a re-organisation following the sale of part of the business, with her male co-worker, who had the same job title, also put at risk.
Mrs Scott was given a briefing pack on the restructure highlighting the company’s vacancy board which those at-risk could use to find a new role.
The cash management specialist never expressed interest in any jobs that were posted on the board.
At the same time as the redundancy process, the head of the treasury department copied the Liverpool Treasury office, where Mrs Scott worked, into two emails addressed to ‘Gents’.
She tried to claim this was evidence of sex discrimination which had then impacted the redundancy selection process.
Author of the emails, Gareth Quantrill, told the tribunal he had only been thinking of the named male recipients when he headed the email but acknowledged it was “thoughtless” and “lazy”.
He added that during the redundancy process he did not have Mrs Scott’s gender in mind.
The tribunal found that ‘Gents’ was not the most “inclusive” of terms and was “old fashioned” but did not support Mrs Scott’s claim for sex discrimination.
Employment Judge Dawn Shotter said: “Gareth Quantrill was writing to named male recipients only and headed the email ‘Gents’, not the most inclusive of terms when [he] copied both to the Liverpool Treasury email address.
“The tribunal found the use of the description ‘Gents’ is an example of old fashioned language in a corporate environment that is unacceptable today.
“Gareth Quantrill’s credible explanation was that it was a thoughtless act which he described as ‘lazy language’ because he was writing to named male individuals and was only copying in the rest of the team.
“All he had in mind were the named male recipients. The tribunal does not accept [Mrs Scott’s] argument that an inference can be drawn from those emails in support of the sex discrimination claim.”
Mr Quantrill scored Mrs Scott and her male co-worker on their suitability for the new treasury assistant role.
She was ranked lower based on their performance reviews over the past few years.
In October that year, Mrs Scott was told she was going to be made redundant and that she would be leaving the insurance company in January 2023.
She did not appeal the redundancy and took “no steps whatsoever” to show interest in alternative roles within the company.
The tribunal found there was a genuine redundancy situation at Rising and Sun Alliance and that Mrs Scott was not discriminated against. She lost her case for unfair dismissal and sex, age or disability discrimination.