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.

Context shouldn’t matter. You are either being racist / unacceptable / bigoted / a bully / harassing someone or you aren’t. The fact you didn’t mean to be offensive is not important. Making a mistake is forgivable and education is more useful than censure in most cases, but ‘I didn’t mean to upset anyone’ isn’t an excuse anymore - thank goodness.

Yes this!! He knew what he was doing and thought he could do it anyway.

It was Lloyd's that did the sacking, not the trainer. I don't think the trainer was directly employed by Lloyd's, but I have only skim read the judgement, so could be wrong.

In fairness, he had had one go at finding an appropriate way to descrivbe the word and the course leader encouraged him to be clearer.

Clearer was obviously to say ‘the N word’. To pretend that this man didn’t know that is ridiculous.

With an otherwise clear record, which apparently he had, I am surprised it was dealt with how it was, it seems harsh.

But, he was absolutely wrong to say it and I just can not believe that he didn’t realise that.

Anyone who can’t work out how to deal with that interaction is not someone who should be in a management role.

It’s about keeping professional language in a professional setting.

It should be treated like a swear word. It’s not racist or illegal or even immoral to call people cunts, dickheads or fuckwits. However, you can’t run up to someone in a bank and call them a fuckwit. Even if it is done in “good faith”

Some legal thoughts:
https://www.herrington-carmichael.com/racist-language-immediate-dismissal-or-ill-judged-mistake/
https://www.doyleclayton.co.uk/resources/news/employment-tribunal-rules-unfair-dismissal-after-the-n-word-is-used-during-anti-racism-training/

https://www.porterdodson.co.uk/blog/is-using-a-racial-slur-always-a-sackable-offence
https://www.stevenmather.co.uk/litigation-solicitor-blog/38602/bank-employee-using-the-n-word-was-unfairly-dismissed/

*But the tribunal was about his dyslexia affected him, not about how your son's dyslexia affects him.

Perhaps you should ask the judge to reconsider Carl's dyslexia issues in light of the overwhelming evidence that your son (a totally unrelated person who wasn't there) does not have the same issues with his dyslexia.

It's almost as if it presents differently in different people.*

Gosh don't you have an unpleasant way with words.

My DS has also worked extensively in education specifically with adults and children with learning difficulties, he has a very wide experience of people with dyslexia as well as having it himself. I have worked in education for many years and worked with children with dyslexia, my sister has worked in education for many years specialising in working with children with learning difficulties. Between us we have seen many examples of the behaviour and difficulties associated with dyslexia.

Inability to stop oneself using language well known to be offensive is not a characteristic of dyslexia. This man is not stupid, or he wouldn't be in the job he was in, he may have another condition that means he is inadvertantly offensive, but dyslexia on it's own is very unlikely to cause this behaviour.

I don’t want to go to work and hear that shit, training or no training. If he wasn’t being malicious (need full context), he ought to have been disciplined. He didn’t need to say the whole word when something like “N word” would have sufficed.

I’m dubious of the need to terminate his employment though, unless that individual had a history of deeply offensive behaviour in their workplace.

I have heard from current Lloyds employees that Lloyds purports to be very inclusive and frank with respect to race and ethnicity. Probably attempting to appear to compensate for propping up the transatlantic slave trade via its insurance offerings.

What a great way to get time off work 🙄

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

Full ruling for all the amateur lawyers on here!

Anyone who says the word itself rather than the very easy phrase "N word" is at best an idiot.

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

Whether he meant to be offensive or not we will never know, but it was certainly a win for him in the end getting such a large pay out. And I’m guessing he’s having a little chuckle to himself when he looks at his bank balance. The right outcome in the end I think….

The context here would be if people were speaking Spanish or English. And I can’t believe I’m actually having to explain that.

To blame dyslexia is genuine madness.

Indeed. But context doesn't matter, right? The n-word is offensive, right?

From what’s been reported, it’s the last word Stephen Lawrence heard before being stabbed to death by five white youths who didn’t know him, because he was black. It’s a word with a lot of aggression, including murderous aggression, behind it, and in this case it was being used in a deliberately disingenuous way by a well-off and comfortably situated white man who clearly surmised, correctly, that he could get away with it as even if he was sacked the payout he would get would be more than ten times the annual wage for most people in this country. It was a display of power. It’s not just ‘an offensive word’.

Sister and Bainbridge, I agree with your posts.

There is a pernicious trend of people trying to dictate to others what they can and can't do (there is another current post about pronouns in one's bio), including what words they can and can't use. They are despotic about this and do not allow any room for disagreement, and insisting disagreement is evidence of racism or transphobia.

It is possible that there are many reasons, not linked to racism or transphobia that may lead to people not wanting to agree to never allowing a word to cross their lips in any given context. This is a world away from saying that the use of the N word is acceptable.

For those who believe that this view is evidence of ignorance or racism, what if it genuinely isn't? Do you think there are no circumstances in the world that a shire person could say the word? If so, what does this achieve? How does this right the wrongs?

I am in no way advocating that the N word should be used in interactions and first hand speech, but unutterable in any context - give over.

What would the poor thing have done had she been in branch dealing with people who used the word in earnest? Either Black people using it to each other or a Little Britain type using it as hate speech?

I can’t think of a single good faith, well-meaning reason why a white person would use that session to ask how better to police the words of others and do so using a racial slur that every white person I’ve ever known does not say in full.

The classic fake ‘I’m confused’ question is a well recognised tactic of racists everywhere.

The guy’s a colossal prick, but has been disingenuous enough to (eventually) get away with it.

These types are very very familiar.

In what way is the content of this kind of training racist? The intention of the training is for people from different cultures and races to learn about each other’s backgrounds and races so that we can all treat each other as we’d like to be treated. That intention is absolutely not racist.

If you mean that the training is racist because it encourages white people to beat themselves up and feel like they’re inferior (this is just my own interpretation and theory, based on criticism I have read of anti racism training), I have to say that I completely disagree.

Surely the existence of diversity training courses in the first place is reason enough to believe that he might not have known? If everybody apparently already realises exactly what they should and shouldn’t say or do, then why is money being wasted on diversity training courses which nobody needs? Either some people don’t know, hence the recognised need for the training; or the training is a pointless waste of everyone’s time because it’s ridiculous to pretend that it’s teaching anything that isn’t already known.

Whether he meant to be offensive or not we will never know, but it was certainly a win for him in the end getting such a large pay out. And I’m guessing he’s having a little chuckle to himself when he looks at his bank balance. The right outcome in the end I think….

Only if he is a racist and feels he got one over on them.

Personally, I’d be mortified and embarrassed, both by what I did and then saying that white middle aged men are at the bottom for everything. I really do think him saying that shows the sort of person he is.

White men that can’t see their privilege and argue they don’t have any, are never good men!

Also, the trainer taking time off, had absolutely nothing to do with this. She worked for an external company, and Lloyds specifically said that this had no bearing on their decision.

It is not up to white people how we should feel hearing that word. It means we are only 3/5 of a person, farm equipment to be physically, sexually and mentally abused. Just think of how half of you kick off hearing Karen and times by a million.

Damned if you do say the full word, damned if you don't. I've seen people on Mnet say why don't you use the full word. He had no racist intentions so the judgement was correct. Maybe if the word was banished, full stop, there would be no room for ambiguity. I don't buy the you're not black so you're not entitled to use it. Nobody should be using it if it helps get rid of it. Of course, that's racist to say that. No, it's common sense and progression. There always seems to be a yes, but ...