Aberdeen Pizza Express ‘Yank’ Row Ends in £5,469 Race Harassment Award 

A chaotic dinner shift at a Pizza Express in Aberdeen ended with two waiters trading insults in front of customers. More than a year later, one part of that heated exchange resulted in a £5,469.04 workplace harassment award. 

Raymond Joseph, an American waiter at the restaurant’s Union Square location, successfully argued that a colleague’s repeated attacks on his nationality crossed the line from an angry workplace argument into racial harassment. 

The ruling is more specific than some headlines suggest. It does not make every use of the word “Yank” illegal. Instead, the employment tribunal examined the full outburst, including an order for Joseph to leave the country, repeated references to his being American, and the fact that the comments continued during the shift. 

A Dinner Rush Becomes a Public Blowup 

Joseph began working at the Aberdeen restaurant in September 2024, usually putting in 20-22 hours each week. 

On April 8, 2025, Joseph and fellow waiter Michael Tortolano were the only two servers working during a busy period. According to the tribunal judgment, both men were struggling to keep up with customer demands when an argument erupted. 

During the confrontation, Tortolano called Joseph an American, used the word “Yank,” and told him to “go back to your country.” Joseph responded with an insult of his own, telling Tortolano to “f*** off, bald loser.” 

The argument did not immediately end. Although the two men separated and continued serving customers, the tribunal found that the hostile exchanges carried on through the rest of the shift. Tortolano repeated his earlier comments, according to the judgment. 

Joseph reported the incident that day. He said he felt “hurt and humiliated,” particularly because customers and other people had heard the remarks. 

He continued working because he depended on his wages. He did not take medical leave or seek treatment, but the judgment stated that he remained upset and repeatedly asked why the company had not begun an investigation. 

Managers initially kept the two men on separate shifts. A formal investigation began several weeks later. Tortolano admitted making a number of the comments, accepted that he was at fault and expressed remorse, according to the tribunal’s findings. 

Why ‘Yank’ Was Not Just Banter Here 

The Equality Act 2010 protects workers against discrimination on the grounds of race, which, under British employment law, includes nationality, citizenship and national origin. Workplace harassment can arise from a single incident if unwanted conduct violates a person’s dignity or creates a hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. 

That context is important because “Yank” does not carry the same meaning in every conversation. It can be used casually, historically, or even affectionately. The tribunal did not issue a blanket ruling that the word itself is always discriminatory. 

In this case, however, it appeared alongside profanity, repeated references to Joseph being American, and a demand that he return to his country. The comments were also repeated during the shift and made within earshot of members of the public. 

Before the final hearing, PizzaExpress conceded that Tortolano’s comments amounted to harassment related to race. Employment Judge Melanie Sangster recorded that concession and concluded: “That complaint accordingly succeeds.” 

The tribunal awarded Joseph £5,000 for injury to feelings, placing the compensation in the middle of the lower compensation band used in discrimination cases. A further £469.04 in interest brought the total to £5,469.04. 

For workers and managers, the lesson is not that every nickname will trigger a tribunal case. It is not that an argument gives employees permission to attack a colleague’s nationality. 

A Legal Victory With Clear Limits 

Joseph’s successful harassment complaint was only one part of a much larger workplace dispute. 

During his employment, he raised concerns about staffing levels, tip payments, working hours, food-handling practices, and Pizza Express anniversary clothing that he believed contained imagery resembling swastikas. 

Management also raised concerns about Joseph’s own conduct. The tribunal recorded that he had posted a message comparing a colleague’s appearance to someone from a “Mumbai helpline call centre.” He received a letter reminding him that a comment intended as a joke could still offend others. 

Joseph was later suspended and dismissed following disciplinary proceedings involving separate allegations of misconduct. He brought additional claims alleging victimization, whistleblower detriment, and automatically unfair dismissal. 

Those claims failed. 

Judge Sangster concluded that Joseph’s dismissal resulted from established misconduct rather than retaliation for protected complaints. The tribunal therefore rejected his challenges to the termination while still upholding the separate race-harassment claim. 

The outcome prevents either side from turning the decision into a simple hero-and-villain story. Joseph’s own conduct was examined and criticized, but that did not deprive him of his right to protection from nationality-based harassment. Likewise, winning the harassment claim did not prove that every action Pizza Express took against him was unlawful. 

The Aberdeen case ultimately comes down to a distinction many workplaces still struggle to make. An argument may be mutual, messy and filled with insults, but when one worker’s nationality becomes the weapon, can it honestly still be dismissed as harmless banter?