In many modern workplaces, boundaries between casual jokes and offensive behavior can be blurry.
But when it comes to long-standing rude gestures like flipping someone the middle finger, where exactly does the law draw the line? That was the big question at the center of a recent employment tribunal involving telecoms giant BT.
The Gesture in Question
The case was sparked by a complaint from Andreea Cracuin, a Romanian business adviser in her 30s who joined BT in October 2022.
She accused her colleague, Darren Sliman, of harassment after he made the middle finger gesture at her.
Known worldwide as a rude hand signal — and often called “flipping the bird” — the gesture actually has ancient roots going back to the Greeks and Romans.
It’s traditionally used to express anger or frustration, and anthropologists have even described it as one of the oldest insult gestures in history.
Equal Opportunity Offending
Cracuin claimed that Sliman’s actions violated equality laws and amounted to sex discrimination.
But the tribunal, which took place in Glasgow, came to a very different conclusion.
The key reason? Sliman had apparently made the same gesture toward male and female colleagues alike — meaning there was no clear evidence of gender-based bias.
In fact, when Sliman walked into the office one day in May 2023, Cracuin reportedly asked him, “Where is your normal greeting?”—which, according to testimony, referred to the middle finger. Sliman obliged.
The tribunal noted this wasn’t a one-time incident.
Cracuin had been flipped off by Sliman on at least three occasions prior and sometimes returned the gesture herself.
Internal Investigation and Mediation Offer
After reporting the behavior to her manager, an internal investigation followed, led by team leader Courtney Black.
Black concluded that Sliman had indeed used the gesture, but that Cracuin had also reciprocated in the past.
He didn’t find grounds for disciplinary action and suggested that workplace mediation might help resolve things.
Cracuin wasn’t on board with that idea. Instead, she demanded Sliman be fired.
When that didn’t happen, tensions escalated quickly.
Escalating Language and Suspension
Things got more heated when Cracuin accused Sliman of being “a racist” and “a Nazi,” and even claimed that if he had lived during a war, “he would be killing people.”
These remarks were flagged by her manager, who reminded her about appropriate workplace language.
But Cracuin doubled down, accusing BT’s leadership of lacking “human traits” and “emotional intelligence.”
She also lashed out at her co-workers, calling them “slackers” and “skyvers” (British slang for people who avoid work).
BT eventually suspended her on full pay while investigating her conduct.
Despite being given the opportunity to reflect, Cracuin stood by her statements and didn’t express any regret.
Dismissal and Legal Action
By December 2023, Cracuin was officially dismissed for her inflammatory remarks and hostile emails.
She responded by suing BT for race and sex discrimination, as well as harassment — all allegedly connected to the middle finger incident.
However, there was a timing issue.
Her complaint wasn’t filed within the required legal time frame, so the tribunal said it didn’t have jurisdiction to rule on it.
Even if it had been submitted on time, the tribunal made it clear that the case wouldn’t have succeeded.
Tribunal’s Final Verdict
Judge Jacqueline McCluskey delivered the tribunal’s final decision: there was no evidence that Sliman’s behavior was related to Cracuin’s sex or race.
The gesture had been used across the board, with both male and female colleagues.
The panel also noted that women made up about 20 to 30 percent of the department — not an unusually low number in context.
In the end, Cracuin’s additional claims — which included disability, race, and sex discrimination — were all dismissed.
A Case of Misjudged Humor or Misconduct?
This ruling highlights a tricky area in workplace dynamics: when does inappropriate humor cross the line into actionable harassment? In this case, the tribunal decided that context — and consistency — mattered.
And as it turned out, giving someone “the finger” wasn’t enough to build a legal case if it wasn’t targeting one gender specifically.