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.

‘I personally have never ever heard or been told that I shouldn't ever pronounce the word if any situation whatsoever.’

Goodness. There are lots of things in life which most adults with reasonable cognition and basic life experience ‘know’ are bad and unacceptable, without needing to be specifically told.

But perhaps we need a long and exhaustive guide for people who need to be ‘personally’ told. Like having bags of peanuts with the warning ‘this contains nuts’ on it. Could be quite a long guide if we have to include all the basic offensive stuff for those who need prescriptive instructions…

The case involved a person with almost 30 years exemplary service, who, himself had a protected characteristic. He was dyslexic and often lost his train of thought / struggled to phrase things differently and would therefore say what he meant, as it was.

He was attending an online course which had been set out as a safe space and a learning environment where people were expected to be a bit clumsy within the topic.

The employee asked a question of the trainer of how he should deal with someone from a minority group, using a word that if said by someone from a different group would be offensive. Unfortunately (for reasons unknown as it seems a very straightforward question) the trainer didn't understand what he meant. He therefore gave the example of if a black person referred to another black person using the 'n' word. He used the actual word though as his own disability meant that he would struggle to explain it in a different way.

Whilst, no, the word absolutely should not be used in a general setting, he wasn't in a general work setting, he was on a course that was designed to address these issues.

It's a slippery slope if the dismissal of someone with 30 years service were to be found fair for this reason.

Goodness. There are lots of things in life which most adults with reasonable cognition and basic life experience ‘know’ are bad and unacceptable, without needing to be specifically told
What a typical condescending response! This thread alone is showing than this is not the case.

Indeed. It’s quite the eye-opener.

Many of you need to read the articles about this. As someone with a Special Educational Need on the same spectrum as this man, he is right when he says that our brains take longer to catch up to what we are saying.
We are all quick to bend backwards and fight for SEND children. Well, SEND children become SEND adults, and we make mistakes.
I also think that the trainer was looking for a way to rant because his first question was sufficient enough to understand she was baiting him. And no one needs 5 days off for distress. My husband just had a PTSD moment at work, did he come home early or want to take 5 days off for distress? No! He put his big boy pants on and continued with his work after speaking with his manager. Some people need to give their heads a wobble.

It’s shown that it is exactly the case

Why is it a slippery slope that there is no tolerance around the use of an extremely offence word that causes harm and hurt in the work place

what is the debate around this exactly that words are not harmful

you do know the trainer was a black lady in what circumstances is it ok for a white man to use this word (ever) but particularly in the company of someone that is highly likely to feel offence and hurt (this wasn’t a drama class be want playing a role)

I think some posters have moved on to discussing generalised principles beyond this case and the N word in particular, whilst others are referring to the specific case that the thread opened on.
I don't think the details of the specific case are a reasonable rebuttal of the generalised discussion.

I agree with this.

I think Lloyds should have used their usual complaints/ dismissals procedure to investigate. During this process they could investigate and come to in informed decision taking into account his reasons/ dyslexia etc.

But in general, I would argue that it is universally wrong for people who aren’t black to use the N-word.

I would also say that his argument of dyslexia acknowledges this other wise why is it relevant? Either it’s I said this wrong thing accidentally because of my dyslexia. Or it’s I stand by what I said and think I should be allowed to say it in that context. Which is it?

There is no setting or excuse for using the n word and it wasn't a safe place to say what you want and how you want. Anyway, I can forsee a massive backlash from this because more people will now use it as a way to get money and at the same time upsetting people. He won his case from his ignorance and hidden racism. He was mayor after all working for his community he wasn't living under rock was he.

He paid a very good solicitor to win his case. Wouldn't you do the same if you was in trouble and jobless with hungry children and bills to pay. His solicitor found a hole in their investigation and ran with it. If his dyslexia was affecting his work they would have known about it and provisions would have been put in place. This is a man who was mayor and he embarrassed himself. He did everything and anything he could to protect his name and his family from poverty.

Anyway, I can forsee a massive backlash from this because more people will now use it as a way to get money and at the same time upsetting people
And that's how biased misconceptions start.

Why would you foresee such a thing? Do you genuinely believe that masses of people are currently rubbing their hands and planning how they are going to use the word, get sacked and sue for a large sum of money, just because they now can?

How about those ignorant racist people as they are referred to here, now being better educated?

I would also say that his argument of dyslexia acknowledges this other wise why is it relevant? Either it’s I said this wrong thing accidentally because of my dyslexia. Or it’s I stand by what I said and think I should be allowed to say it in that context. Which is it?

It was not disputed by any party in the hearing that he was wrong to have said the word. He'd already acknowledged this and apologised as part of the disciplinary hearings.

Well then why are some on this thread using it as a chance to talk about context and argue that white people should be allowed to say that word if it’s in a conversation about the word?

That comes back to the earlier comment that some on here are discussing the tribunal case, and others have moved the conversation on to a general discussion about use of the 'n' word.

The more I watch, listen and read nothing surprises me anymore.

The more I watch, listen and read nothing surprises me anymore
Ditto! But ultimately, we're all here sharing the same places with our different views and perspectives we're
all entitled to have as long as they remain legal.

You don't want men having a say on women's matters and that's not illegal but you think it's reasonable to ask that question.

What answer are you looking for and why do you want to debate this. It shows more about your character that you want this discussion. If you believe there is no consequences for saying the n word then think again because no one has to tolerate offensive language regardless if you say it directly or not.

depends where he's applying. Director of minority engagement at Oxfam, probably not. Financial adviser at GMB news, they'd probably be more likely to hire him to prove a point!
Plus he's 59, with a £500,000 payout I wouldn't bother getting another job!

page 14 of the full verdict is interesting....at least 5 other staff members brought up the incident on their anonymous feedback forms without any prompting (completed immediately after the sessions so they'd not have known there was going to be any complaint/dismissal).

While 2 people felt the trainer was right to have stopped him, the other 3 (while still acknowledging they disagreed with the word) said she 'did not react well' 'got angry' 'cut him dead' launched a 'vitriolic attack' 'threatened him', made the other attendees feel awkward, uncomfortable and not wanting to engage, contradicted what they'd been told about it being a safe space, and apparently didn't follow the advice she had previously just taught them herself regarding how to respond to inappropriate words. None of which screams 'great trainer.'

When the training delivery company first contacted Lloyds about it, they were asked exactly what he said (in the context of whether he called someone a N*word or more similar to what he actually asked) and they said something completely different (and much worse), not only generally but actually said it was a direct quote!

I also thought it was dodgy af that the recording of the meeting had been deleted - surely if your staff member is so upset that she goes off sick for a week and you make a complaint to the organisation the first thing you do is retain the evidence!

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64e88740691aa3000da56dec/Carl_Borg-Neal__vsLloyds_Banking_Group_Plc.pdfassets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64e88740691aa3000da56dec/Carl_Borg-Neal__vsLloyds_Banking_Group_Plc.pdf

And given an interview to a freedom of speech podcast

‘The opinion of the expert who assessed him was that his dyslexia caused such significant difficulties with verbally expressing complex ideas’

Oh fuck off with that logic. How is not saying the N word ‘verbally complex’

sounds like he has enough money for very good lawyers who came up with all sorts of tricks. The more I hear about the ‘reasons’ why he felt compelled to say a racist word the more I’m convinced he was just being racist and a smartarse.

‘And given an interview to a freedom of speech podcast’

of course he has.