Dismissed for using the ‘N’ word at work
The tribunal last month awarded £490,000 compensation for Lloyds Bank worker who was unfairly dismissed for using ‘the N word’ during a work training session...
What happened? Details of the case...
Carl Borg-Neal was a manager at Lloyds Bank. He was one of more than 70,000 employees who were invited to attend a race education training session back in 2021.
During this training session, the group were told that they could “speak freely” and that the session was an opportunity to “be clumsy”. Mr Borg-Neal asked how he should handle a situation where a member of an ethnic minority used a word that may be considered offensive if used by someone not from that minority. He said to the trainer that rap music was: “The most common example of the use of the N-word in the black community”. However, instead of using the abbreviation, he used the full racial slur.
Mr Borg-Neal immediately apologised and did not repeat the word. However, the trainer, who was black, was offended by the use of this word and took off four or five days off work. This then triggered an investigation at work.
After working for Lloyds Bank for 30 years and maintaining a clean disciplinary record, Carl Borg-Neal was dismissed from work for gross misconduct.
What was the outcome?
The Employment Tribunal held that the Bank was reasonable to hold the view that the use of the full N-word was appalling and should “always be avoided in a professional environment”. However, they upheld one of the disability discrimination claims put forward by Mr Borg-Neal on the basis that his dyslexia could lead him to “keep reformulating questions and to ‘spurt’ things out before he lost his train of thought”.
The Tribunal found in favour of Mr Borg-Neal and held that his dyslexia was a strong factor in how he expressed himself and that no reasonable employer would have dismissed him given the unusual and particular circumstances of the case.
Subsequently, the claimant was awarded £490,000 in damages.
In his own words, Mr Borg-Neal alleges that he was subject to an “Orwellian witch-hunt” for the “smallest mistake”.
Conclusion: This is a case which reminds us all that we should think before we speak at work, employers should consider all the facts of the matter and take into account the circumstances before making a decision as to how to deal with it.
