If you’re racist at work to colleagues, customers or your boss, you can expect to face disciplinary action or even dismissal. In this article, we’ll look at four recent stories from Australia and around the world of workers who met this fate.
This includes a Queensland public sector employee who racially abused her German colleague and a US teacher who wrote the n-word on the whiteboard. Also, an airline worker who won US$99,000 for being a victim of anti-Asian racial abuse and a Guzman Y Gomez employee who won a $10,000 unfair dismissal payout after experiencing racial discrimination.
This story concerns the 2025 Queensland Industrial Relations Commission case Hornberg v State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads) [2025]. Nikki Hornberg worked as a project costing officer at the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads in the town of Warwick. In March 2024, she was reprimanded by the Department for referring to a German colleague as ‘Helga,’ which was not her name. Ms. Hornberg had done so to coworkers while the German colleague wasn’t present. She also used the words “nein nein” towards the colleague, who had a strong German accent.
Multiple colleagues made complaints about her racist remarks and Ms. Hornberg was then subject to a disciplinary process. An independent investigation concluded that her remarks constituted misconduct under section 91 of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld). The Department then officially reprimanded her and ordered her to take training.
Claimed she was victim of ‘persuasive’ tactics
Ms. Hornberg appealed the penalty decision via a claim with the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, arguing that it was unfair and unreasonable. Her grounds for appeal largely centred on a challenge to the substantiation of the allegation itself. However, the Commission noted that the issue had been available for appeal at an earlier date.
Ms. Hornberg claimed that the Department’s decision was made on the balance of probabilities, “not factual evidence.” She said that during the investigation, her interviewer used “persuasive and suggestive tactics.” Ms. Hornberg also argued that her conduct should have been handled as a performance issue at a local level, rather than as a disciplinary matter. She stated that she was denied procedural fairness as she only received a redacted copy of the investigation report.
The Department contested Ms. Hornberg’s claims by offering the facts established by the investigation. It argued that her conduct was a deliberate violation of the Code of Conduct for the Queensland Public Service.
The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission’s role was to review whether the penalty decision was fair and reasonable, not to re-hear the matter. It noted that Ms. Hornberg had admitted to using the name ‘Helga’ in reference to her coworker. It also noted that she did so “behind the co-workers back.” The Commission concluded that this “disrespectful” conduct in itself was sufficient to justify the sanction.
It dismissed Ms. Hornberg’s argument that her conduct should have been treated as a performance issue, finding that it constituted misconduct. The Commission stated that the choice of the name ‘Helga’ was a form of racial stereotyping that “unnecessarily draws attention” to the race of the coworker in a “mocking way.”
The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission found that Ms. Hornberg’s insistence that the sanction was unfair demonstrated a “troubling lack of insight” into the seriousness of her actions. It also addressed her concern about procedural fairness. It stated that the redactions in the investigation report were necessary to protect the privacy of employees involved in the multiple complaints.
The Commission concluded that the decision to treat the matter as misconduct was up to the discretion of the Department. It ruled that its decision to impose a reprimand was “fair and reasonable.” The Commission therefore confirmed the decision to impose a reprimand.
This US story of racist remarks in the workplace made news headlines in April 2025. It came after a teacher from a high school in Loganville, Georgia was dismissed following the widespread sharing of a video on social media. In the video, the teacher was shown smiling while writing the n-word on the whiteboard, without writing the final ‘r.’ A student then shouted out ‘r’ before the teacher wrote it on the whiteboard, eliciting cheers and laughter from the class.
The video was posted on Facebook by a mother of a student at the high school. In her post, she said that the video “must be seen” so others could know what’s going on at school when children are left in the responsibility of teachers. The mother was later interviewed by a local TV station, telling them “This should never be brought up in a classroom, like ever.”
The widespread sharing of the video led to the creation of an online petition demanding leadership at the local school district be dismissed. The creator of the petition also shared a letter to the school district’s leadership on social media. He said the teacher was encouraging students to engage with the word during what he described as a “classroom word game.”
He called the incident a “clear violation” of US civil rights laws, saying that using a “historically violent and dehumanising slur” by a teacher in front of students is “inexcusable.”
This story of racial discrimination in the workplace made the media rounds in early 2025. It came after US airliner United Airlines was forced to pay US$99,000 (around AU$148,000) to a former worker. The worker, a Mongolian American, claimed he had suffered racist verbal and physical abuse from colleagues. The settlement came after the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission launched a lawsuit on his behalf.
The worker was a driver at a United Airlines’ catering facility. His racial discrimination suit alleged a history of harassment since he began working for the company in 2019. For months, his co-workers refused to use his nickname “Bondok,” claiming it was too hard to say. Instead, they allegedly referred to him as “Chinaman.” The lawsuit highlighted that the worker’s colleagues were “open and notorious” in the way they hurled racial abuse at him.
The core incident that prompted the lawsuit happened in January 2021, at the height of COVID. While the worker and a colleague were in the lunchroom, a manager told them to pull up their masks. Both men responded with “Yes, sir.” The complaint alleged that the manager, who seemed to have misheard the worker, turned back and asked, “What did you say?” before using a racial slur.
The manager then reportedly leaned in close to the worker, questioning his tone in a “threatening manner,” twisted his arm to inspect his employee badge. The manager then asked if he valued his job, before slapping him on the back and saying, “Lucky for you, I’m a good guy.”
The worker reported the incident to management. However, he was not contacted by anyone from the company that day. Due to the lack of action, he submitted his two weeks’ notice. The lawsuit alleged that United Airlines did not contact him at all during those final two weeks and only began an investigation more than a month later. It further claimed that while the investigation was ongoing, the manager in question received a pay raise. The manager later signed a separation agreement that allowed him to “retire in lieu of termination.”
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission argued that United Airlines’ failure to address the incident and protect the worker from racial discrimination “exacerbated” the racially hostile work environment.
In a statement, United Airlines said that the manager was removed from the workplace after an investigation. It also said that the victim declined an offer to return to the company. Under the terms of his settlement, United Airlines will not only pay him US$99,000 but also provide him with 75,000 flight miles.
United Airlines was also required to review its equal employment opportunity policies, submit regular compliance reports to the federal government and change its workplace violence policy. The revised policy will mandate that investigations into complaints of physical violence or threats are initiated within 72 hours of a report.
This story relates to the Fair Work Commission unfair dismissal case Ms. Adrianna Permus v Guzman Y Gomez Franchising Pty Ltd [2025]. Adrianna Permus started working as a casual crew member at a Guzman Y Gomez restaurant in Carousel, Perth in February 2023. She worked on a regular and systematic basis until July 2024, when the number of shifts she was offered began to drop. She attempted to get more shifts from local managers but was unsuccessful.
On 23 July 2024, Ms. Permus filed a complaint with Guzman Y Gomez, alleging she was being discriminated against in the allocation of work. This complaint was handled by a senior lawyer at Guzman Y Gomez’s head office. The lawyer’s initial response to the complaint was that the number of shifts for casual employees was determined by local managers and that Guzman Y Gomez didn’t guarantee shifts. Despite this, Ms. Permus continued to seek shifts from local managers and was told that none were available. She again raised the issue with the lawyer in August 2024 and was reassured that she “remained employed.”
In September 2024, Ms. Permus lodged a general protections application with the Fair Work Commission. She alleged that her hours had been reduced to zero and that Guzman Y Gomez was discriminating against her on the basis of race. Guzman Y Gomez denied the racial discrimination claim. It stated that Ms. Permus did not meet performance standards and that there had been a breakdown in the working relationship. The company provided no material to substantiate these claims.
A conference was held at the Fair Work Commission in October 2024 to address the racial discrimination claim, but the dispute was not resolved. It was during this conference that Guzman Y Gomez finally made it clear that it had no intention of providing Ms. Permus with work. At no point had the company formally notified Ms. Permus that she was no longer employed. Ms. Permus then submitted an unfair dismissal claim with the Commission.
In her unfair dismissal claim, Ms. Permys told the Fair Work Commission that her treatment by Guzman Y Gomez left her feeling “so depressed” and “worthless.” She said she went from being a “happy young girl” to a “self-isolated” person struggling to find motivation to leave the bedroom.
Ms. Permus included 11 witness statements in her unfair dismissal claim. Coworkers described her as a “hard worker” who was “always willing” to accommodate the needs of the business. She was described as reliable, efficient and positive with a “strong work ethic” and willingness to help others.” They also noted that she was involved in training new crew members and helping with store openings.
Ms. Permus expressed concerns about how Guzman Y Gomez had handled the dispute. She said that a failure of Guzman Y Gomez to be mindful of the nature of their workforce could lead to “significant harm” to their employees.
In contrast, Guzman Y Gomez provided no witness statements or evidence to justify Ms. Permus’s dismissal. It merely refiled a brief submission from the extension of time application and a copy of its response to Ms. Permus’s discrimination claim. The company did not contest the facts presented by Ms. Permus.
At the unfair dismissal hearing, the Fair Work Commission concluded that there was no valid reason for Ms. Permus’s dismissal. It highlighted the fact that she was a hard-working employee and that Guzman Y Gomez provided no evidence to the contrary. The Commission also found that Ms. Permus was never notified of a reason for her dismissal or given an opportunity to respond.
It was found that the participation of Guzman Y Gomez’s HR specialists in the dismissal process had an “adverse” impact. The Commission said that they “led Ms. Permus to believe” that she was employed by the company even though it was no longer providing her with work. It said that the company’s approach caused confusion for Ms. Permus and left her “in limbo.”
The Fair Work Commission also addressed Ms. Permus’s concerns about the treatment of young workers. It found that Guzman Y Gomez “failed” to act professionally, be mindful of its young workforce and avoid causing significant harm to its employees.
Since Ms. Permus did not seek reinstatement, the Commission ordered the company to pay her the equivalent of her earnings for the 26 weeks immediately before her dismissal. This amounted to $10,252.35, which Guzman Y Gomez was ordered to pay within seven days.
As of writing, details of Ms. Permus’ general protections case for racial discrimination is yet to be published by the Commission.
Read more: Race Discrimination and Racism
Whether you’ve been treated unfairly because of your race, gender, age, disability or another protected attribute, Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives (AWDR) is here to stand with you. For over 30 years, we’ve helped Australian employees challenge workplace discrimination, unfair dismissal, bullying, harassment, redundancies and more.
We’ve managed thousands of claims nationwide, securing fair outcomes and compensation for workers who’ve been wronged. Call 1800 333 666 for a free, confidential consultation and let us help you take action.
