Following the ‘gramps’ tribunal case where a 61-year-old sales person was awarded £63,000, as reported in the 24 March News Update, Personnel Today has highlighted some other cases where nicknames led to problems.
“Yoda”: age discrimination: In Nolan v CD Bramall Dealership Ltd t/a Evans Halshaw Motorhouse Worksop, the employer discriminated because of age by making Nolan redundant because he was close to retirement. Evidence of age bias included colleagues nicknaming Nolan “Yoda”, a 900-year-old character in Star Wars.
“Borat”: race discrimination: In Ruda v Tei Ltd a Polish welder’s race discrimination claim was upheld over the use of the nickname “Borat” (the name of a Kazakhstani film and television character created by Sacha Baron Cohen), on the basis that the name evoked stereotypes about eastern Europeans.
“Ironside”: disability discrimination: In Davies v Remploy, a wheelchair user succeeded in a workplace disability harassment claim on the basis that a manager nicknamed him “Ironside”, referring to the TV character, a police consultant, who was paralysed from the waist down after being shot in the line of duty.
“Sooty and Sweep”: race discrimination: In Buckle and Mitchell v Brook Daihatsu, two black employees were found to have suffered race discrimination when they were called “Sooty and Sweep” by their colleagues, i.e. nicknames with a racial connotation.
Content Note
The aim is to provide summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. In particular, where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out full details of all the facts, the legal arguments presented by the parties and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Click on the links provided to access full details. If no link is provided contact us for further information. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, SM&B cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
