­
  • Services
  • Team
  • Careers
  • Insights
    • News
    • Events
    • Podcasts
    • Case Studies
  • Contact

MoorcroftsMoorcroftsMoorcroftsMoorcrofts
Menu
  • Services
  • Team
  • Careers
  • Insights
    • News
    • Events
    • Podcasts
    • Case Studies
  • Contact

Unfair dismissal case highlights the complexity of workplace language

workplace language

Unfair dismissal case highlights the complexity of workplace language

2nd October 2023

Share this post

A recent case involving a former Lloyds Banking Group employee has sparked debates and discussions around the boundaries of workplace language and its consequences. Carl Borg-Neal, a former manager at the bank, won his case for unfair dismissal after being dismissed for using a racial slur during a race education training session. This case brings to the forefront the importance of addressing sensitive topics in a diverse workplace while maintaining a balance between training and discipline.

Borg-Neal was one of over 70,000 employees invited to participate in Lloyds Banking Group’s Race Action Plan, which included race education training sessions. During one such session in 2021, a discussion about intent versus effect led him to ask a question about handling a situation where he had heard someone from an ethnic minority use a potentially offensive word. In his example, he used the full word instead of an abbreviation, specifically mentioning the use of the N-word in rap music. Borg-Neal apologised immediately for his choice of words.

Following the training session, the trainer took four or five days off work as a result of the distress caused by Borg-Neal’s use of the racial slur. In response, Lloyds Banking Group decided to dismiss Borg-Neal from his position. The bank’s stance was that the word used was “appalling” and should be avoided in a professional environment.

In the subsequent legal proceedings, the Employment Judge acknowledged that the word used by Borg-Neal was indeed offensive and distressing, especially for a black employee. However, the judge also ruled that in the unique circumstances of this case, no reasonable employer would have dismissed the claimant. Instead, the bank could have chosen to issue a warning, given the context of the training session, which aimed to explore the intention versus effect of language.

The Tribunal rejected Borg-Neal’s claim for race discrimination, finding that the primary reason for his dismissal was his use of the racial slur, rather than his ethnicity. However, the tribunal did uphold one of Borg-Neal’s claims for disability discrimination, considering his dyslexia as a factor in his choice of words during the session.

Lloyds Banking Group Banking Group emphasised its “zero-tolerance policy on any racial discrimination or use of racist language” in response to the case. As you would expect, most big organisations, such as Lloyds, are committed to inclusive and respectful workplace environments.

The Carl Borg-Neal case underscores the complexity of addressing sensitive topics related to race and language in the workplace. While maintaining a commitment to eliminating racial discrimination and offensive language is crucial, it is equally important for employers to consider the context and intent behind an employee’s actions.

Please contact Moorcrofts for advice on workplace language and discrimination or other employment law issues.

Related Post

6TH MAY 2025

The Supreme Court rules that ‘woman’ refers to a...

The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers has ruled that the terms ‘woman’, ‘man’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010, are to be interpreted in relation to a...

22ND APRIL 2025

25 Years of Excellence at Moorcrofts

This year marks a significant milestone for leading corporate law firm Moorcrofts as it celebrates 25 years of delivering expert legal services. Since its founding in 2000, the firm has grown from a team of three into a highly respected...

Recent Posts

  • The Supreme Court rules that ‘woman’ refers to a person’s biological sex in landmark decision

    6th May 2025
  • 25 Years of Excellence at Moorcrofts

    22nd April 2025
  • Employee Share Schemes in the UK: A Comprehensive Guide

    22nd April 2025

Get in touch

team@moorcrofts.com
T. +44 (0) 1628 470000
F. +44 (0) 1628 470001
LinkedIn Twitter

Find us

Thames House
Mere Park
Dedmere Road
Marlow
Bucks
SL7 1PB
Moorcrofts LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under number OC311818. Partners: Theresa Hunter, Barry Maytum, Joe Hughes, Julia Ferguson, Kate Prentis, Lindsey Abbott, Tim Astley and William Pearce. Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (number 419658) VAT no. GB 727298404

The term "Partner" is used to refer to a member of Moorcrofts LLP or a person of equivalent status, qualifications or senior management experience.

Privacy and cookies  | Service and price transparency  | Complaints

© 2024 Moorcrofts LLP, All Rights Reserved.

This website uses cookies to personalise your experience. For more information on how this site uses cookies please view our Privacy policyOk Close Me