Every year, there are countless news stories about employees that have been dismissed for racism. In this article, we look at five of the most shocking, viral or unusual cases of this year.
This includes a racist Trump-supporting real estate agent, a top bank exec terminated for anti-Indian racism, a factory worker who mocked his boss with a fake Irish accent, and a woman who was branded racist for referring to management as “Karens.” Some of these racist workers ended up facing the consequences, but others, as you’ll read, won huge unfair dismissal payouts.
In March 2025, news broke about a US real estate agent who faced termination of employment for leaving a waiter with a racial slur instead of a tip. The agent, Stephanie Lovins, had just finished eating at Cazuelas Mexican Restaurant & Cantina in Columbus, Ohio. She had been served by a waiter called Ricardo. Ms. Lovins paid the $87.84 bill and handed the receipt back to Ricardo, which in the tip line read “Zero. You suck.” Scrawled across the signature space Ms. Lovins had written: “I hope Trump deports you!!!”
A friend of Ricardo’s later posted a photo of the racist receipt online and it quickly went viral, amassing over 11,000 reactions. Internet sleuths soon worked out that it was written by Ms. Lovins. In response to an online backlash, she took to LinkedIn and Facebook to claim that her credit card had been lost or stolen and that she was the victim of a “scammer” or “profile hacker.” She also claimed that she had been framed.
However, this alibi quickly disintegrated when the restaurant reviewed its internal CCTV footage. The footage clearly showed Ms. Lovins dining at the restaurant during the time the receipt was generated. Her guilt confirmed, Ms. Lovins then faced termination of employment by her employer, Century 21 Excellence Realty. The company released a formal statement confirming that Ms. Lovins was no longer affiliated with them, noting that “hate has no place” within their organisation.
Ms. Lovins was also dismissed from her primary place of employment as a marketing coordinator at another company. The restaurant later told media that her racial slur stemmed from a dispute regarding the establishment’s “one coupon per table” policy during a busy rush hour. It confirmed that Ricardo was a natural-born US citizen of Latino heritage. It was reported that he had a disability and was working two jobs at the time.
A GoFundMe campaign was started by a regular customer to support Ricardo, which raised more than $27,000. Interestingly, a GoFundMe was also set up to support Ms. Lovins and give her a “second chance,” which raised over $1,000 before it was taken down.
The individual who created it said that Ms. Lovins “deeply regrets” writing the racist message and that it has had “serious consequences on her life.” The person wrote that Ms. Lovins was “struggling financially” and that any funds raised would go to paying her basic expenses and enrollment in diversity training.
In August 2025, a security officer who worked at London’s Heathrow Airport won a £44,000 (around A$90,000) unfair dismissal payout. This was despite being fired for multiple instances of anti-Indian racism. Jose Gomes had been employed by LHR Airports (i.e. Heathrow Airport) for over twenty years and held a prominent role as a union representative. The events that led to his termination of employment began shortly after he was elected chair of a union branch in 2022.
Mr. Gomes and some colleagues met with LHR Airports management to formally report harassment by Mr. Dadral, who preceded him as chair. This internal report was accompanied by a police notification. Later that year, Mr. Dadral was convicted of harassment without violence. He was subsequently suspended by Heathrow Airport and became the subject of his own disciplinary proceedings.
Following his own suspension, Mr. Dadral filed grievances against Mr. Gomes to Heathrow Airport, alleging racial discrimination. He alleged that Mr. Gomes had played him a video denigrating India. Mr. Gomes allegedly told Mr. Dadral “this is what your country is like” while playing him the video, which showed “why India is a dirty country.”
Mr. Dadral also alleged that Mr. Gomes regularly made racist comments to him. He alleged that he told him “If you shake an Indian man’s hand then make sure you count your fingers after.” Mr. Dadral also alleged Mr. Gomes made other racist comments about “the odour of Black people.” He allegedly often used the South African word “katinga” to refer to what he deemed was their “particular smell.”
Heathrow Airport subsequently investigated the allegations. Mr. Gomes admitted to having the video on his phone, though he initially defended it as educational rather than offensive. He also admitted to using certain derogatory phrases but maintained they were not directed at any specific individual. Mr. Gomes claimed the handshake saying was one he had learnt from others (referencing what “the Russians say”) and had not directed it at anyone in particular.
Heathrow Airport concluded that Mr. Gomes had violated the company policies and that his behaviour constituted gross misconduct. In November 2022, they decided he would face termination of employment, citing a risk of reoffending and the discriminatory nature of his behavior.
Mr. Gomes subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal claim with a UK employment tribunal. It agreed that the video was “racist” and “highly offensive, regarding Mr. Gomes’ argument that it was shared for educational purposes as “absurd.” Regarding the handshake comment, the tribunal said that Mr. Gomes was aware of what it meant and that it was offensive.
The tribunal found that there was “little to be disputed” about Heathrow Airport’s findings that Mr. Gomes had made racist and offensive remarks. However, it disagreed with the way the company used them to terminate his employment. It said that this decision fell outside the range of reasonable responses available to the employer.
The tribunal took several factors into account to come to this finding. It considered Mr. Gomes’ 20-year unblemished disciplinary record prior to this incident. The tribunal also deemed that his behavior stemmed more from naivety than from a targeted campaign of harassment. It also noted that Heathrow Airport’s disciplinary policy was unclear, as it listed discrimination under both general misconduct and gross misconduct.
The tribunal noted that Mr. Gomes had offered an apology and demonstrated a willingness to follow management instructions in the future. It therefore found that his termination of employment had been unfair and awarded him £44,000. However, the tribunal applied a 12.5% reduction to the payout because Mr. Gomes’ own actions contributed to his dismissal.
In July 2025, a senior Citigroup executive who had been fired for anti-Indian racism launched a discrimination lawsuit against the global bank. Ann Watson, who served as a senior vice president in the Finance Solutions Group, was let go for comments she made during a virtual interview in 2023. She had been interviewed by a Citigroup panel for an internal position.
During the interview, Ms. Watson addressed a panel member of Indian heritage and blamed her professional failures on a specific ethnic group. She told the interviewer that a project she had worked on had failed “because I was working with a team of Indians.” She followed this up by saying “No offense to you, Kapil, but you know what Indians are like to work with. It’s a nightmare.”
Immediately after the remark, the interview was halted and Ms. Watson was placed in an online waiting room. When the session resumed, she allegedly acknowledged the potential for repercussions by saying, “Now it’s your chance, Kapil, to get me back.”
Ms. Watson was informed nearly a month later that she was under investigation by Citigroup’s HR. The company eventually terminated her employment, maintaining that the dismissal was a necessary response to “racist and offensive” behavior. Ms. Watson had been at Citigroup for over 12 years.
In 2025, Ms. Watson challenged her termination of employment by filing a lawsuit seeking compensation. She claimed she was “horrified” and “shocked” by the racism accusations. In a witness statement, she said that she would never normally blame a specific culture or country for a project failure.
While Ms. Watson did not deny making the comments, she testified that she had no memory of the exchange. She argued that her behavior was a result of uncharacteristic conduct caused by “brain fog” and memory loss associated with long Covid and menopause. At age 55, she alleged that the dismissal was “too harsh” and constituted discrimination based on age, sex and disability.
The outcome of Ms. Watson’s lawsuit is yet to be determined.
In July 2025, a 74-year-old UK worker was in the headlines after being scolded by an employment tribunal for referring to her ex-employer as “Karens.” Sylvia Constance, a black British woman, had been employed by Harpenden Mencap, a charity dedicated to supporting adults with learning disabilities. Ms. Constance faced termination of employment in June 2023, following a period of suspension. She subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal claim.
According to evidence presented at the Watford Employment Tribunal, her employers took action following reports of “emotional and psychological abuse” involving a tenant under her care. Harpenden Mencap also accused Ms. Constance of bullying and intimidating her fellow staff members. The charity argued that these incidents led to an “irrevocable breakdown” in the professional relationship, necessitating her termination of employment.
However, in her unfair dismissal claim, Ms. Constance argued to the tribunal that she had experienced victimisation and direct discrimination based on both her race and her age. Her legal representative, Christine Yates, provided written statements in the unfair dismissal claim alleging that the charity’s management had engaged in a targeted campaign of bias.
The way in which she presented these accusations, however, would ironically see Ms. Constance’s unfair dismissal claim branded as racist. Ms. Yates’ submissions used particularly pointed language, claiming that Harpenden Mencap’s management had “acted like the stereotypical ‘Karen.’” She claimed that the white female managers had weaponised their positions of privilege to deflect from their own alleged misconduct.
Ms. Yates argued that they had accused Ms. Constance of “fictitious infringements” and had colluded with white male residents to foster a “misogynistic, racist view” of her.
The tribunal took issue with the use of the term Karen. Judge George Alliott branded the term as “pejorative,” describing it as “borderline racist, sexist and ageist.” By using the slang, the judge suggested the claimant’s defense was employing the very type of discriminatory stereotyping they were accusing the employer of practicing.
Ultimately, the tribunal found no evidence of a racially motivated campaign against Ms. Constance. The judge ruled that the complaints regarding her conduct were “legitimate” and rejected all of her claims. Her unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.
In October 2025, a UK worker was awarded more than £16,000 (around AU$32,000 after he was found to have been unfairly dismissed for anti-Irish racism. Karl Davies, 57, had been working as an engineering storeman for the Oscar Mayer ready-meal plant in Wrexham, Wales. He had worked at the plant for over 27 years.
His termination of employment followed an incident in August 2024, in which Mr. Davies greeted his manager, Scott Millward, using a mock Irish accent and the phrase “top of the morning to ya.” At the time of the remark, Mr. Davies was listening to Irish music. Mr. Millward was accompanied by an external auditor who possessed red hair, leading Oscar Mayer to conclude that Mr. Davies was targeting the auditor with a racial slur.
Mr. Davies made an unfair dismissal claim with a UK employment tribunal, which found that neither the manager nor the auditor were actually Irish, nor did Mr. Davies believe them to be. However, it branded his behavior as “reprehensible” and “mocking,” noting that Mr. Davies was intentionally trying to irritate his supervisor.
But the tribunal also found that Mr. Davies’ termination of employment did not meet the legal threshold for racial harassment in this specific context. It highlighted several significant failures in the company’s disciplinary process. The main findings was that the investigation was conducted by a manager who was already involved in an unresolved grievance with Mr. Davies.
The tribunal also found that Oscar Mayer had failed to consider Mr. Davies’ 27-year tenure and previously unblemished disciplinary record. It also highlighted that the investigation was “largely based on assumptions” regarding Mr. Davies’ intent toward the external auditor.
The tribunal clarified that the ruling was not an endorsement of the behavior or a comment on “wokeness,” but rather a critique of a flawed disciplinary procedure. Because Mr. Davies’ conduct was deemed “blameworthy,” the tribunal applied a 15% reduction to the final payout. Davies was awarded a total of £16,490.82.
Read more: 4 Racist Workplace Scandals: From ‘Helga’ to $99K Airline Abuse Payout
We at Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives help workers get justice for Australian workers, whether you’ve been targeted by discriminatory conduct or unfairly disciplined after allegations arise.
For over 20 years, we’ve helped employees across Australia to understand their rights and challenge unlawful discrimination through the Fair Work commission. If racism, stereotyping or biased decision-making has affected your job, we’re here to help you assess your options and take action. Contact us now on 1800 333 666 for a free and private consultation.
