This is an employment tribunal decision in the UK based on specific facts. It should not be considered a general rule that applies to all workplaces. It is possible for an F-bomb to explode with enough force to destroy your hopes of continuing employment. The judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff.

Based on 2019 and 2020 events, the claimant alleged that her employer and co-workers had harassed and discriminated against her. The usual dispute raged over whether the issue was the claimant’s job performance or the conduct of another, but the facts regarding a April 2020 meeting are the most interesting. This is a good thing, as the tribunal heard 13 witnesses and reviewed more than 4,000 pages worth of documents. None of these facts are relevant here.

According to the F-bomb, the claimant claimed she was "undermined" and "belittled" at the meeting by one of the managers. She mentioned that Shane was the sponsor of a project. The manager replied that Shane didn't care that Shane was sponsoring it. This she cited as evidence of unfair treatment. Although the manager denied it and other witnesses claimed they couldn't remember it, the tribunal believed the claimant. However, this did not make any difference.

The Claimant was a credible witness. We don't believe it is something she has made up. We believe the words used are quite commonplace and don't have the shock value that they might in other times. We believe it is something that could have been said, but is not being recalled by [other witnesses] due to its lack of importance at the time.

Emphasis added. Final decision by the tribunal was that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed. However, it rejected all of her claims.

Unfortunately, the tribunal didn't explain why the manager used the word or which evidence it had consulted before coming to its conclusion. We have certainly come a long distance since 1644 when Oliver Cromwell used the word at Battle of Marston Moor, which caused the royal army's fleeing to be forced to flee. The word is now much more commonplace, particularly since 1960, according to this Google Ngram chart.

This seems to be roughly in line with a rise of profanity all around:

But does the word have any shock value? It is not.

This would depend greatly on the context. It is also one reason why its use in official legal proceedings can be quite rare and, partly for that reason, quite often hilarious to me. You can see, for example, "Motion To F*#& Yourselves' (Apr. 1, 2022; "Supreme Court Allows Cheerleaders to Use Snapchat" (June 23, 20,21); "[Motion] To F--- This Court And Everything It Stands for'" (Apr. 23.2015, "How to Avoid Jury Duty," (June 23, 2021); "[Motion] to F--- This Court and Everything It Stands For'" (April 4, 2013); "Supreme Court Deliberates F-Bomb (Nov. 6,2008); "Deponent & Counsel Jointly Sanctioned $367 per F-Bomb (Mar. 6, 2008).

This issue was not addressed in any of the cases I found under my employment law category. "Sugar Plum Fairy Fired For Cursing During Drug Test" (Nov. 16, 2011,). However, there are many examples of how what you say at work can lead to trouble (see, for example, "Things Not to Share with Employees #1-5" (June 10, 2015.). Despite this ruling, the F-word retains enough shock value depending on context. You should not use it in any official or semi-official workplace situation. This is probably why I continue to use "F-word" and "F-bomb" here, although it's expressive and versatile. This is not a semi-official project for work, but it's better to be safe than sorry.