Apple genius who joked to Chinese colleague that ‘you’re spreading a deadly disease’ was unfairly fired, court hears

An Apple Store employee who joked with a Chinese colleague about “y’all” releasing “another deadly disease into the world” in reference to the Covid pandemic was unfairly fired because the investigation relied on a “non-existent” zero tolerance policy, a court ruled.

The Central Magistrates’ Court in London heard that Mr T Jeffries, who worked for Apple as a “genius” – the name given to staff at the tech company’s retail stores – was fired for making a joke to his colleague in the break room. The employee targeted by the comment was said not to have taken offence and did not complain; however, the comment was reported by another colleague.

The court found that Apple’s investigation had “significant flaws” and that there was “ample evidence” of a culture that “embraced explicit language and some jokes that could be considered inappropriate, whether they referred to race or other sensitive issues.”

Employment judge Hodgson added: “No reasonable employer would dismiss someone based on the application of a zero tolerance policy which does not exist… dismissal was outside the scope of reasonable responses.” In these circumstances, I find that the dismissal was unfair.

Background

Jeffries worked at Apple UK at its White City store in west London from December 18, 2010 until his dismissal on February 3, 2023. He worked like a genius, which included supporting customers who had problems with the products.

On December 13, 2022, Jeffries was returning from his break when he noticed his co-worker, Mr. Webster, talking to another co-worker, Ms. Liu.

Jeffries then joined the chat, bidding Webster farewell before turning to Liu, who is of Chinese descent, and telling him “as long as you don’t spread another deadly disease to the world,” referring to the Covid pandemic, the first case of which was identified in China.

The court heard Liu’s intention was to joke and he laughed. Jeffries said that racial stereotypes were “often joked about among the Genius Bar team” and that he believed Liu would “understand the intended joke” since he did not intend to offend .

The court heard that Liu did not file a complaint, but Webster did. He followed up with an email saying he had heard the comment, that Liu seemed “shocked” and that he had spoken to her, but she suggested she would pass her comments on to Jeffries and asked him not to pursue the discussion.

Mr. Gormley, a senior manager at the store, who was also present at the time of the conversation, wrote an email on December 13 sharing a witness statement.

The court heard that Jeffries was subsequently investigated by a senior manager at the Apple Regent Street store. The investigation focused on Jeffries’ comment to Liu.

The manager interviewed Gormley, Webster, Liu and Jeffries, who admitted using the remarks and said he was “stupid” and regretted commenting at the time.

However, the court found that the senior officer in charge of the investigation did not make it clear that there was no complaint from Liu and that when Jeffries realized he was asking Liu about his comment, he thought there was a complaint coming directly from her.

He was asked if he had spoken with Liu, to which he said yes, but she had indicated “no displeasure.” He further claimed that she “laughed at the comment.” He also said that they had a good relationship and that she called him “her best friend” and that they shared many jokes.

Jeffries was also asked about his perception of the impact on Webster and Gormley, saying they may have heard it and deemed it “inappropriate”. He stressed that he should not have said it and that he was “ashamed”. Throughout the interview, he acknowledged his humiliation and admitted that the joke may have offended someone and was “inappropriate.”

He emphasized the existence of a strong relationship between colleagues and referred to considerable “banter”. He said the nature of the situation was “pretty much one of everyone giving as good as they get.”

The court heard Jeffries acknowledged that someone unaware of his close friendship with Liu would have interpreted his comment as “racist” and he continued to acknowledge it was incorrect and express regret for having said it.

The court also heard there was an investigative meeting with Webster and Liu, although this file was incorrectly dated January 15, 2023.

The documents show that Liu noted that she was not offended and was joking with Jeffries; however, she was aware that this might have made other people uncomfortable if they had been present.

On December 15, 2022, Webster was interviewed and confirmed Jeffries’ use of the words, and stated that Jeffries was sometimes “a little basic in his thought process and the way he approaches things, maybe didn’t look at things from all angles.”

He said Jeffries had never used offensive language before and the comment surprised him. “I think he knew it too because he turned red and started stuttering; he knew he had made a mistake,” Webster said.

The court found that the investigation report did not focus clearly on the facts and did not set out the context of the initial complaint “adequately or at all.”

The report also states that Jeffries appears to have violated the company’s policy on bullying and harassment and failed to meet its diversity and inclusion commitments. However, the report does not specify which part of the guidelines he is accused of violating.

On January 6, 2023, Jeffries was summoned to a disciplinary hearing. The alleged wrongdoing was identified as the incident with Liu in the break room on December 13, 2022, and another allegation that occurred on December 17, 2022, involving a discussion about an individual’s resume and an alleged implication by Jeffries that career progression at Apple was based on cultural heritage.

The hearing was held by Brighton store boss Mr Pegram and the court heard Jeffries accepted that Liu’s comment could be considered “vile and offensive” if taken out of context. However, he complained about the minimal nature of the investigation.

The court also heard that Pegram conducted the interview and referred to Apple’s definition of bullying; however, Jeffries did not accept that he bullied Liu.

On January 21, 2023, the disciplinary hearing resumed. Pegram admitted that Jeffries appeared “remorseful.”

The court then heard that Pegram explained that he had to make a decision about the two allegations made. He said: “I also have to consider the level of risk you impose in the long term given your behaviour and your comments. There is no place for such behaviour at Apple – we have a zero tolerance policy. What is your response to that?” Pegram did not explain the reference to the zero tolerance policy.

Jeffries was fired by Pegram and sent him a termination letter dated February 3, 2023, which read: “All things considered, I believe your actions constitute a violation of Apple’s policies: Apple’s Business Conduct Policy and the Bullying and Harassment Policy as discussed with you in the meeting.”

Additionally, he said: “I consider your actions to be discriminatory. Any act of discrimination, intimidation or harassment towards colleagues, customers or any other person is considered by Apple to be serious misconduct.

“While I have taken into account your tenure and clean record in making my decision, your actions constitute serious misconduct and, in the circumstances, I believe the appropriate outcome is dismissal.”

Jeffries appealed on February 6, 2023, alleging that the decision was “not a logical and reasonable response to the facts presented.”

Following the firing, Apple launched an investigation into general concerns about the use of racial stereotypes and the culture of its Genius Bar at the White City store.

Judge’s comments

Employment Judge Hodgson said: “Mr Pegram had no reason to believe that the claimant did not understand the seriousness of it. He had no reason to believe that the (claimant) would repeat the comment. The remorse and understanding were clear from the investigation.

“The investigation was not limited to establishing the facts. It was punctuated by speculative questions seeking opinions and inappropriate leading questions that had nothing to do with fact-finding. »

The panel also said Pegram had “little or no reason” to believe Apple had a zero-tolerance policy, noting that “his belief was not based on any investigation or review of any documents,” adding that it was, “in essence, his own opinion or interpretation. He could not cite any policy.”

Justice Hodgson continued: “There is no good reason for Mr Pegram to focus on his own perception of a zero tolerance policy rather than on the wording of the policies which the complainant is alleged to have breached.

“This approach was arbitrary, vague and inconsistent with current policies. This seriously undermined the fairness of its approach.

They added that there was no reason to conclude that the first accusation amounted to “harassment” because the behavior was not repeated and was not considered “insulting or otherwise threatening.”

Apple declined to comment, but provided context on its relevant policies.