An employment tribunal has ruled that using the term "slapper" to describe a colleague in the workplace is considered gross misconduct, leading to termination. The case involved Lynda Pearson, a long-time employee of Tesco, who was fired after reportedly calling her line manager, Isabel Mumby, a "slapper." Pearson argued that her dismissal was unfair and took the case to the Midlands East Employment Tribunal in Nottingham. However, both her claims of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal were rejected by the tribunal. Pearson had worked at Tesco since December 2005 and was employed as a personal shopper at the Tesco Extra store in Lincoln at the time of her dismissal. She had previously received a warning in 2021 for misconduct, but that warning had expired before the events that led to her termination. In April 2025, Pearson allegedly told four colleagues, including Claire Dickson, that Mumby was a "slapper." Pearson acknowledged that the term is used to describe a sexually promiscuous woman and is similar to "slut" or "whore." She denied making the specific comment that Mumby had "slept her way to the top," but a disciplinary investigation suggested that she likely made both remarks. The misconduct hearing concluded that Pearson had indeed made both the "slapper" and "slept her way to the top" comments, which led to her dismissal. Pearson appealed the decision but was unsuccessful. Employment Judge Martin Brewer stated that the investigation found it more likely than not that Pearson made the comments about Mumby. He noted that Pearson was aware of the evidence during the disciplinary hearing and accepted that some colleagues had heard her refer to Mumby as a "slapper." Brewer emphasized that Tesco operates in a highly competitive market where maintaining a good reputation is essential, which justifies the company’s strict stance on discriminatory language. Pearson admitted that the term "slapper" is a sexual comment and would not want it said about her. The tribunal ruled that Pearson’s actions constituted a serious breach of her employment contract and a violation of the implied term of trust and confidence between employer and employee.