One of the biggest risks in chat-message cases is that employers react to the words on a screenshot without stepping back and testing context. Tribunals will often want to know what the full conversation was, who could see it, whether anyone was directly impacted, and whether this was an ongoing pattern or a one-off lapse. That doesn’t mean context becomes an “excuse”, it means context affects what a reasonable employer might do next.

Another common issue is whether expectations were actually clear. If an employer is going to treat certain language in Teams as gross misconduct, it needs to be able to show staff were trained, policies were accessible, and the standard was consistently applied. The judgment in this case places weight on the wider picture around workplace standards and guidance, including the absence of training and the employer’s approach to how digital conduct should be managed.

Finally, proportionality matters. Even where conduct is inappropriate, dismissal won’t always sit within the “range of reasonable responses”, especially where there are alternatives that could correct the behaviour, protect others, and reinforce standards without ending employment. The tribunal found that dismissal was not a fair outcome on these facts.