“Cool it, Man!” No racist and homophobic slurs at work

Dan Wilband

In Kordolemis v. Sobeys Capital Incorporated, 2026 NSSM 1A, a Nova Scotia court ruled that racist and homophobic language in the workplace can justify firing an employee without notice.

Even after 33 years of service.

The Small Claims decision in Kordolemis v. Sobeys shows where employers must draw the line, regardless of tenure or performance history.

The meat cutter repeatedly used racial and homophobic slurs at work. When confronted with witness testimony, he denied everything. The court found otherwise, determining he had routinely used offensive language to disparage colleagues over many months.

This was not a single mistake. It was a pattern.

The legal question became whether this conduct met Nova Scotia's strict standard for summary dismissal without any notice. The Adjudicator found there was just cause at common law, but under section 72 of the Labour Standards Code, employers can only terminate without notice or compensation for "wilful misconduct, disobedience or neglect of duty." That bar sits higher than common law just cause.

The court recognized that progressive discipline remains the expected norm. A warning, a suspension, or education/training should be the first response to an employee's breach.

But this case reminds us that not all misconduct deserves a warning first.

The court found the employee's use of racial slurs against a young African Nova Scotian colleague, combined with homophobic language in the workplace, violated the core of the employment relationship. It breached Sobeys' Respectful Workplace Policy and shattered the trust essential to any employment relationship. It amounted to "wilful misconduct" under the Code and justified immediate termination.

The decision cited previous Nova Scotia rulings on the gravity of racist language. These words create hostile environments where colleagues cannot work with dignity. When conduct reaches this level of severity, progressive discipline becomes inappropriate. The breach is immediate and fundamental.

Three key principles emerge:

Respectful workplace policies are contractual obligations, not suggestions. Violations carry real consequences.

The "wilful misconduct" standard can be met without malicious intent or ill will. The court found that intentionally making the statements was sufficient, even if the employee did not intend to cause harm.

Summary dismissal remains justified for the most serious violations. While progressive discipline should be the norm for most workplace issues, conduct that fundamentally undermines workplace dignity may warrant immediate termination, even for long-service employees.

The court concluded that maintaining a respectful, harassment-free environment sometimes requires removing those who violate these standards, regardless of their years of service or technical competence.

Kordolemis v. Sobeys Capital Incorporated, 2026 NSSM 1