Employment Appeal Tribunal upholds dismissal of railway worker over discriminatory email
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has ruled that a railway worker’s dismissal for sending a discriminatory email to HR was fair and reasonable.
• public
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed an appeal by a former railway worker, Ms Chunxiu Zhao, who challenged her summary dismissal by Govia Thameslink Railway Limited. The case centred on an email Ms Zhao sent to the company’s recruitment team, in which she expressed concerns about a colleague transferring to her station. In the correspondence, she suggested that the colleague, who is of Indian heritage, would form a clique with another existing staff member because they were both Indian.
Tribunal finds dismissal for conduct was fair
Ms Zhao, who had been employed by the railway operator since 2010, was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. The company’s internal investigation and subsequent disciplinary hearing concluded that her email breached the organisation’s Anti-Harassment policy. Following her dismissal, Ms Zhao brought claims for unfair dismissal, asserting that the disciplinary process was flawed and that she had been treated unfairly.
The original employment tribunal found that the company had a genuine belief in the misconduct. It further noted that the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses available to an employer, particularly given the claimant’s role in a customer-facing environment where trust is essential. The tribunal also highlighted that Ms Zhao showed no remorse and indicated she would repeat the behaviour.
Appeal grounds rejected by the EAT
On appeal, Ms Zhao argued that the tribunal had failed to properly consider whether she was given adequate notice of the specific allegations against her, particularly that the email was considered discriminatory. She contended that she was effectively ambushed during the disciplinary process.
His Honour Judge Auerbach rejected these arguments. He concluded that the tribunal had correctly applied the legal tests for fairness. While acknowledging that the disciplinary charges could have been expressed with greater clarity, the judge affirmed that the overall process, including the appeal stage, provided the claimant with a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations. The EAT ruled that the tribunal’s decision was not perverse and that it had properly considered all material evidence.
Read the entire judgment here: Zhao v Govia Thameslink Railway Ltd [2026] EAT 101
