Judgment approved by the court Vaultex UK Ltd v Bialas claimant’s mental processes, at [40] and [41]. We read [56] as, for the most part, addressing this and referring back to those findings. 61. Reading these paragraphs fairly and as a whole, the sense is that this was not a case where the tribunal found that the employer believed that the claimant, for example because of a language difficulty, misunderstood the meaning of the words in the post, or something of that sort. Rather, the claimant put his case in the internal process as to why he said he genuinely thought that the content of this post was a positive contribution to the anti-racist campaign. The tribunal’s conclusion appears to have been that this was not a case where the dismissing officer had concluded that the employee, fully appreciating that this material was overtly racist and why, had decided for some malicious or malign reason to post it on the intranet. 62. But the tribunal needed then to consider whether, taking that into account, Mr Babbage was nevertheless entitled, within the band of reasonable responses, to take the view that this was still conduct which warranted the sanction of dismissal. What the employer concludes was the employee’s state of mind in relation to the conduct will obviously usually be highly relevant to whether dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. But it may still be open to an employer within the band of reasonable responses to dismiss for conduct which, though it is not believed to be malicious, is still reasonably considered to be seriously thoughtless or lacking in insight, negligent or reckless, in view of what is considered to be its serious impact or implications. 63. We have stood back and reviewed this passage in the context of the tribunal’s decision as a whole. It does appear to us that, notwithstanding its careful and correct self-direction, the tribunal did allow its decision to be influenced by the judge’s own view of the gravity of this conduct having regard to the various mitigating factors that the claimant had relied upon. Certainly, the tribunal has, we are bound to conclude, failed to give sufficient or proper consideration to whether it was reasonably open to the deciding manager, having taken account of all those same mitigating matters that the claimant relied © EAT 2024 Page 22 [2024] EAT 19