Manager dismissed for using racial slur during race training: unfair and discriminatory
A manager with 18 years' service was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against for using the full N-word during a race education session. The tribunal found his dyslexia contributed to the error and ordered Lloyds Banking Group to pay over £454,000.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #disability-discrimination
- #unfair-dismissal
- #dyslexia
- #race-education-training
- #acas-code-uplift
Key facts
- The claimant used the full N-word during a race education training session while asking a question about handling offensive language.
- The claimant immediately apologised and did not repeat the word.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair because no reasonable employer would have dismissed him in the circumstances.
- The tribunal found the claimant's dyslexia contributed to his use of the full word, making the dismissal discriminatory arising from disability.
- The claimant's claim for direct race discrimination was not upheld.
Timeline
-
Training incident
Claimant used the full N-word during a race education training session. He immediately apologised.
-
HR case opened
HR opened a case into the incident.
-
Claimant notified of investigation
Claimant was told an investigation had been opened.
-
Investigatory meeting
Claimant attended an investigatory meeting with Laura McMahon.
-
Investigation report submitted
McMahon submitted her investigation report recommending formal action for gross misconduct.
-
First disciplinary hearing
David Lewis chaired the first disciplinary hearing.
-
Reconvened disciplinary hearing
Further evidence from witnesses was discussed.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal hearing
Seung Yun Lee Oxley heard the appeal.
-
Appeal rejected
Oxley rejected the appeal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal was unfair and whether it amounted to discrimination arising from disability, given the manager's dyslexia affected his impulse control during the training session.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination arising from disability, but rejected claims of direct race discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Key reasons:
- The incident occurred during a race education session where the manager asked a genuine question about offensive language. He immediately apologised and had no prior disciplinary issues.
- The manager's dyslexia caused him to 'spurt' out the full word without considering alternatives, linking the dismissal to his disability.
- A warning or further training would have been a reasonable response; dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £13,600
- Compensatory award: £441,114.81
- Total: £454,714.81
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should consider an employee's disability when assessing misconduct, especially if it affects communication or impulse control.
- Dismissal for a single, non-malicious use of offensive language during a training session may be disproportionate, particularly if the employee apologises and has a clean record.
- Race education training is valuable, but employers must handle incidents arising from it carefully to avoid unfair outcomes.
- Long-serving employees with good records are entitled to a more lenient approach; a final written warning may be appropriate instead of dismissal.
A question that cost a career
During a race education training session, a manager with 18 years' service at Lloyds Banking Group asked a question about handling offensive language. In doing so, he used the full N-word. He apologised immediately, but the bank dismissed him for gross misconduct. The tribunal found this was both unfair and discriminatory.
The case highlights the tension between an employer's legitimate desire to maintain a respectful workplace and the need to consider individual circumstances. The manager's dyslexia was a key factor: it caused him to focus on his complex thought and 'spurt' out the full word without considering alternatives. The tribunal concluded that his disability contributed to his expression, making the dismissal discriminatory.
What the bank could have done differently
The bank accepted the manager's question was valid and without malice. He had a clean disciplinary record and had never used the word before. Instead of dismissal, the bank could have issued a warning and provided further training — as the manager himself suggested. The tribunal noted that no reasonable employer would have dismissed him in these very particular circumstances.
Why this matters
This decision does not condone the use of offensive language. It underscores that employers must consider all relevant factors, including disability, length of service, and the context of the incident. For employees, it shows that a single mistake, even a serious one, may not justify dismissal if there are mitigating circumstances. For employers, it is a reminder that a rigid zero-tolerance policy can lead to unfair and discriminatory outcomes.
Similar cases
Dismissed without a meeting or appeal: a conduct case with big reductions
A former employee of Fairview Grocers Limited was unfairly dismissed without any meeting or right of appeal, but his own conduct led to a 60% cut in compensation. He was awarded £3,752.89 in total.
Nursery worker with disability unfairly dismissed and discriminated against
A nursery worker was unfairly dismissed and subjected to disability discrimination by Monkton Under 5 Playgroup. The tribunal awarded £27,676 in compensation, including £16,200 for injury to feelings.
Parking warden with dyslexia unfairly dismissed over GPS data: tribunal finds discrimination
A civil enforcement officer with severe dyslexia was unfairly dismissed after GPS data appeared to contradict his patrol records. The tribunal found procedural failings and indirect disability discrimination, awarding £17,126.
Welder with 20 years' service wins disability discrimination claim but has award reduced for failing to mitigate loss
A welder who resigned after his employer failed to make reasonable adjustments for his heart condition has won his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims. The tribunal awarded £42,334 but reduced compensation because he turned down a job offer the day after leaving.