Sadly, he had to argue on the grounds that, as a dyslexic, he was entitled to handicapped protection
/Bank worker wins £490,000 payout after being unfairly dismissed for using the N-word in anti-racism training session
A bank manager who was unfairly sacked for seeking advice on what to do if he heard a black person using the N-word at work has won a £490,000 payout.
The former mayor and councillor blamed dyslexia and successfully claimed disability discrimination.
This week, he was awarded almost £500,000 in damages. Added to Lloyds's legal costs and tax, the bank has a bill of nearly £1million.
The payout is the culmination of a two-year battle to clear his name after working for the bank and its affiliates for 30 years.
Father-of-two Carl Borg-Neal, 59, from Andover, Hampshire, raised the question during a Lloyds Bank race education training session on July 16, 2021, but in doing so inadvertently used the word in full himself. He apologised immediately.
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.
The tribunal added that the bank had discriminated against him on account of his dyslexia, which leads him to 'spurt things out before he loses his train of thought'.
The panel in question took place in July 2021 and was attended over the Internet by around 100 Lloyds Bank managers.
Mr Bord-Neal asked how a situation should be approached when an ethnic minority person used a term usually perceived as offensive to their own community.
The trainer didn't understand the question, so Mr Borg-Neal said: 'The most common example being [the] use of n***** in the black community.'
People in the training session described how the training manager told Mr Borg-Neal off and threatened to expel him from the course.
Mr Borg-Neal said the manager 'went mad' and even though he tried to apologise she just kept 'shouting' at him.
[Sounds like she was the one who should have been fired as unsuitable for the job, but then I suppose she’d have a claim for discrimination against the severely mentally ill — ed]