Her Boss Shouted ‘Potato’ at Her in an Irish Accent Every Time They Disagreed — Then a Tribunal Awarded Her £23,000

Photo credit: AI-generated image created using ChatGPT. Illustrative only.

Most workplaces have their share of cheap jokes and tired nicknames. The problem is, once a “joke” is aimed at somebody’s identity—and especially once it’s repeated in front of others—it stops being banter and starts becoming a way to put someone in their place.

That’s what a Leeds employment tribunal heard in the case of Irish book-keeper Bernadette Hayes, who said her boss repeatedly shouted “potato” at her “in a strong Irish accent” whenever they disagreed. The details were reported in the source material, and the tribunal ultimately awarded her more than £23,000 after finding she’d been subjected to racial harassment.

It’s an uncomfortable story because it’s also a familiar one. A person needs the job, tries to keep their head down, tells themselves it’ll pass, and then one day realizes the “small” comments have stacked up into something heavy.

What the tribunal heard about “potato” and other slurs

Ms Hayes worked at engineering firm West Leeds Civils and described the period from December 2023 to June 2024 as “a death by 1,000 cuts.” She told the tribunal that the director, Mick Atkins, made comments about her being Irish and that while some seemed “in jest,” the behavior later “ramped up” after his friend Marcus Smith became involved in the business.

According to her account, if she and Mr Atkins had a disagreement, he would shout “potato” over and over again in an Irish accent. She said he did it in front of other staff, and sometimes even as soon as he walked into the office, before she’d spoken to him at all.

The tribunal also heard that Mr Atkins used terms including “paddy,” “stupid paddy,” and “pikey,” and that he called her a gypsy/traveller due to her Irish heritage. Ms Hayes said he even sent “potato” in a WhatsApp exchange, and claimed he would make remarks suggesting she was “lusting after the travellers outside the office.”

How “banter” turns into a hostile environment

A lot of bad workplace behavior survives because it hides behind a grin. Somebody says something ugly, then quickly frames it as humor, and if you don’t laugh you’re the “sensitive” one. That trick works best in offices where people are busy, bills are due, and nobody wants to be the person who “can’t take a joke.”

Ms Hayes told the tribunal the comments eroded her self-respect and self-esteem. She said it made her feel “small, insecure, violated and extremely anxious,” and that she felt embarrassed, especially when it happened in front of other staff.

There’s also a practical trap here that plenty of working people understand. She said she had a huge change in personal circumstances and needed the job, which made her feel trapped. Needing the paycheck doesn’t mean you consent to being degraded, but it does explain why people sometimes endure far more than they should.

The judge’s view: linked to race, not harmless teasing

Employment Judge Buckley found the conduct created “a hostile, humiliating and offensive environment” for Ms Hayes. The judge said that, taken as a whole, it was reasonable for an individual of Irish heritage to find the repeated use of terms like “potato,” “paddy,” “stupid paddy,” and “pikey” offensive and humiliating.

One important detail is that the tribunal didn’t treat each phrase in isolation. Judge Buckley said the phrases were “overtly linked to race,” particularly when considered together, and on that basis the harassment claim succeeded.

That approach matters because people who behave this way often try to slice it thin. “It was only one word.” “I didn’t mean it like that.” “She took it wrong.” But a pattern tells the real story, and a pattern is exactly what the tribunal accepted.

Why joining in doesn’t erase the harm

The tribunal heard that Ms Hayes “joined in” on two occasions by using the word “potato” or a potato emoji in messages. If you’ve worked around strong personalities, you’ve seen this dynamic: someone tries to smooth things over by laughing along, hoping it buys peace.

Judge Buckley accepted that she did it to “fit in” and “make it seem OK.” That’s a grounded way of looking at human behavior. People sometimes play along not because it’s fine, but because they’re trying to survive the day without making the atmosphere worse.

It’s also why a decent manager doesn’t take nervous laughter as permission. A man with any maturity can tell the difference between mutual joking and a person trying not to get targeted again.

Sick leave, grievances, and dismissal

In July 2024, Ms Hayes took sick leave and messaged Mr Atkins: “I do want to leave, I am sorry. Life is too short and I have been unhappy for some time, and it’s not fair on either of us to let that continue.” That’s not the language of somebody playing office games; it’s the language of someone worn down and trying to exit without blowing up the room.

She raised a grievance about Mr Smith’s behavior, which the tribunal heard she described as “bullish.” She also raised a further complaint of indirect harassment related to a protected characteristic.

In a document setting out her grievance, she said the last six months had made her feel like she’d suffered “a death by 1,000 cuts,” and that her GP signed her off with work-related stress on 29 July 2024 after months of harassment and bullying. Ms Hayes was later dismissed from the company, the tribunal heard.

The award and the response from the employer

The tribunal awarded Ms Hayes £20,735.91 and instructed the business to provide her with four weeks’ wages totaling £2,800. Taken together, that’s a little over £23,000—money that doesn’t erase what happened, but does put weight behind the finding that this wasn’t acceptable conduct.

Mr Atkins told the Daily Mail that the proceedings were “nonsense from start to finish.” People say that kind of thing when they feel cornered, or when they’ve convinced themselves that their intentions are all that matters. The trouble is that leadership isn’t graded on intention alone; it’s graded on impact, pattern, and responsibility.

If you’re the director, the owner, the manager—the one with the power—your words land differently. You don’t get to act like the office clown and then act surprised when the law treats it as harassment.

A plain standard for men in charge

This kind of story should make any man who leads people pause for a minute. Not because every workplace needs to feel like a monastery, but because your authority gives your humor teeth. When you repeatedly single out an employee’s heritage, you’re not building camaraderie—you’re setting a pecking order.

And if you’re a coworker watching it happen, silence has a way of becoming permission. Nobody needs to deliver a dramatic speech, but a simple “knock it off” or “that’s not on” can change the temperature. It’s not about being the office hero; it’s about refusing to let someone be reduced to a stereotype for sport.

There’s a moral angle here that doesn’t require a sermon. Basic dignity isn’t a perk reserved for the confident and financially secure; it’s owed to the person who needs the job and shows up anyway. If a workplace can’t manage that, a tribunal may end up being the only grown-up in the room.