Sacked for using 'N' word

[Horrace]

I don't know how to copy link sorry but has anyone been following the story of the Lloyd's bank manager who was sacked for asking a relevant question in a so called anti racism training session by his employers but in his question he used the full 'N' word.
His question I believe was how would he be expected to deal with black employees or customers speaking to each other using that word.
The trainer was so offended by the word, she had to take 5 days off work. However, he got sacked.
He has since been awarded £500,00 but no apology from Lloyd's and no job back.
As far as we know, the ridiculous incompetent trainer is still employed.

I am close to this story but afraid to say how.
But will say that I'm losing sleep and furious more and more at this bank.

The only question regarding the trainer is if they were explicit in stating the boundaries around the training such as not using offensive or degrading language and being respectful of others in the room

This is covered in the judgement; apparently the trainer said "When we talk about race, people often worry about saying the wrong thing. Please understand that today is your opportunity to practice, learn and be clumsy ... The goal is to start talking, so please speak freely, and forgive yourself and others when being clumsy today"

She didn’t take 5 days off because of it. It was the straw that broke the camels back in a line of incidents. Not to mention the fact that her job probably involves going back and trying to deal with more such incidents in training sessions. I’d imagine there are quite sensible reasons why someone might not want to jump straight back into that.

I suspect the problem with opening stuff up as a safe space is that while no malice was meant in this case, some dickheads will use this opportunity to air their unpleasant views under the guise of just asking a question or trying to learn. And it’s probably quite difficult for anyone to have to deal with that on a day to day basis and work out which strangers are well meaning and which are dickheads.

Here's the full judgment for anyone who is interested

CarlBorg-NealvsLloydsBankingGroupPlc.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk)

No, I wouldn't. As a professional and person isn't racist, I'd have said "the n word". It's concerning when someone can comfortably let it slip out of their mouth easily. Whether she asked him to elaborate or not, which is exactly what the tribunal report has mentioned - it should not have been said. I have never uttered the full word so it would be uncomfortable and odd for me to say that.

I suspect there were previous instances reported to HR that they could not prove or failed to follow up on but this was witnessed by many. This is likely why training was rolled out in the first place because of things like this.

OP fails to realise all of this "unnecessary" training is rolled out due to a business need, which is usually determined by the company culture.

This

How can his use of the word be both caused by his consideration for making his question more clear and because of a lack of inhibitions. He used the "inhibited" expression first.

"The London Central Employment Tribunal panel said the manager was thinking of 'the use of the N-word by black people in rap lyrics or to each other when playing basketball' and did not intend to cause hurt, adding that his question was valid and without malice."

🫣

I mean this is the set up. Be clumsy..

Use a word, get fired and win tribunal for £500k

They might want to look at how better to manage it

That makes me so angry

How dare you come on this thread, spouting facts!

The sly racists are loving this thread.

As middle age woman, I found it stressful to evolve in this new culture where more and more words are considered extremely offensive regardless of the intention behind the use of the word. Add to this that it is ok to use offensive words, that can be extremely hurtful to some people, as long as it doesn't refer to a protective characteristic.

What's the default that makes acceptable or not? An word deemed offensive by some cultural regulation that might actually not upset the concerned person who hears it when the intention for its used was not to offend or a word that is used specifically to cause upset, that is known by the user to be highly offending to the recipient but is not covered by the law, for instance, their nationality (which is not race).

Add to this whether it's ok to use the world in an appropriate context if only referred by it's first letter (what about two letters? Or spelling it?).

Frankly, it's all such a grey area that it IS exactly why it should be brought up in training. So tired of people who just recite from some unknown script and use this to persecute people with no intention to cause upset. I'm so glad, and massively relief, that the court showed reasonability and compensated the upset that was caused to this person.

My comments were in relation to people saying the n-word should never be used ever, no matter what the context. I agree that shouting ‘cunt’ in Tescos is likely to have consequences. It is virtue signalling to say ‘’the n word’, it’s a signal that you understand the full word is offensive. Now sometimes virtue signalling is a good idea, but it shouldn’t be mandatory in all contexts. If, for example, a friend mentioned this case to me and used the full word, I wouldn’t think anything of it. She’s not calling me one, or looking for an excuse to say it, it’s a conversation about the use of the word. Hearing the word in isolation will not hurt me.

but is not covered by the law, for instance, their nationality (which is not race).

Nationality is covered along with race in the Equality Act. Not a grey area at all.

Lots of people saying that they have never uttered that word. What do you think will happen if you do? Try saying it alone in a room, or perhaps in your head. It’s like that philosophical question about a tree falling in the woods. If you say an offensive word when there is no one there to be offended, is it still offensive?

Sorry that’s so stressful for you @vivainsomnia… imagine how stressful being a victim of racism is though.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/9/2010-10-01#:~:text=(a)a%20reference%20to%20a,of%20the%20same%20racial%20group.

I know it is a different area, but the word entrapment comes to mind ...

I don't suppose you're alone, and find it interesting that the recording of the training session has apparently been deleted - though of course we don't know when or by who

If faced with something so hideously offensive that it caused me to take 5 days off work I'd personally want that record to be kept, so can only wonder why it wasn't

Having read the full statement, there are quite a few fuck ups from the bank / training company side. Firstly, they accused him in writing of saying something that he didn't ("In America this ethnic minority are called n-word"), which the bank's own investigation was found out to be untrue. Then, the trainer refused to join any disciplinary meetings or answer any questions, citing being uncomfortable. Then, the teams recording miraculously gets deleted (when in my experience, these are usually filed as evidence for the training), which is quite weird given that there is a gross misconduct investigation ongoing. And the whole internal investigation takes more than a year, with more and more people involved with second- and third-hand evidence.

The guy does sound a bit like a garden variety dickhead tbh, but I can also see why he feels very wronged here.

Show me where I have called anyone a racist on this thread. Go on. Because that’s what you are accusing me of. Or you can admit you made a mistake and I will accept your apology.

Then your understanding of dyslexia is poor. These are the ways dyslexia is often first noticed but it involves significant and complex cognitive differences and challenges, including:

• Find it hard to listen and maintain focus
• Find it hard to concentrate if there are distractions
• Feel sensations of mental overload/switching off
• Have difficulty telling left from right
• Get confused when given several instructions at once
• Have difficulty organising thoughts on paper
• Often forget conversations or important dates
• Have difficulty with personal organisation, time management and prioritising tasks

I.e. having made the effort to ask the question carefully, being asked to paraphrase it again a) may have been hard to do when he’s been put on the spot with 100 course participants watching on camera and b) mean that he believed - it being a safe space and all - that saying the word in full as a direct quote was fine.

Dyslexia is now included under the neurodiversity umbrella and as a trainer Ms Osei ought to have considered that he may have a hidden disability leading to clumsy use of language. His processing issues were also referenced in the judgment.

EDI is supposed to be inclusive of and sensitive towards all diversities - not just ones related to skin colour.

Does dyslexia make you think white people are held back by their whiteness?

I agree with this. Lots of people saying that obviously everyone should know not to use this word, it’s the worst word there is. Some people think that, but not everyone knows or agrees. How do we decide what’s offensive and what’s so offensive that it should never be said? Attitudes change: personally I was aware that most people agree this word is highly offensive, but I had not heard that it should never be uttered. That might be a new development. Clearly, it is necessary to discuss these things (perhaps in ED&I training!) rather than just assume everything knows and thinks the same.

He should not have said the word. Even in context.

Please don’t use age as an excuse. As a woman in my fifties I find it pretty easy not to use racist and offensive terms. It is not as hard as people pretend to make it out to be.

@OneTC WTF has that got to do with anything? That he may, after these events, feel that being a ‘white middle aged man puts him at the bottom of the pile’ [misquote from memory] may or may not be valid, it is irrelevant to the facts of the case and the judgment. Try reading it. You don’t have to like him to accept that Lloyds were in the wrong in this case.