In the case of Mr V T v Phoenix Whirlpools Limited a British Indian bathroom salesman, Mr VT, was subjected to harassment by a sales director who repeatedly misnamed him, a tribunal has ruled.

The tribunal found that Mr VT’s name held significant cultural meaning in his Hindu heritage, contributing to his pride in it. Mr VT joined Phoenix Whirlpools as an area sales manager for London in June 2021. In March 2022, Mr DD was appointed as the new sales director. Mr DD and Mr VT planned to meet on March 21 and 22, 2022, for Mr DD to assess Mr VT’s performance and identify any support needed.

Mr VT was to pick up Mr DD from King’s Cross at 8:45 am. However, on March 20, Mr VT informed Mr DD that he had to do the school run due to his wife’s absence but assured he would still arrive on time. Despite this, Mr VT was late, arriving around 9:05 am. The tribunal noted an immediate mutual dislike between the two men.

During their car journey, the atmosphere was tense. Mr DD, irritated by the delay, questioned Mr VT about his job, which Mr VT was not prepared for but offered to explain later using his laptop. Mr VT perceived this questioning as an attempt by Mr DD to assert dominance. At one point, Mr DD described himself as a “good bullshit detector,” prompting Mr VT to turn up the music to avoid further conversation.

Throughout the car ride, Mr DD misnamed Mr VT twice, calling him “Vikesh” instead of “Viveak.” Although Mr VT corrected him both times, Mr DD did not apologise. The tribunal acknowledged Mr DD’s dyslexia, which might explain his difficulty remembering names, but noted that Mr DD did not disclose this to Mr VT.

Feeling distressed, Mr VT suggested a stop at McDonald’s for a coffee break to discuss work and take a break from Mr DD. At McDonald’s, Mr DD again misnamed Mr VT twice. Upset and angry, Mr VT packed his bags to leave, accusing Mr DD of not making an effort to pronounce his name correctly and thus showing no respect.

As Mr VT walked away, he called Mr DD an “idiot” and a “racist,” ending their meeting and asking Mr DD to remove his belongings from the car. Mr DD blocked the car’s rear, preventing Mr VT from leaving, and warned him, “You’re finished; you’re terminated.” Despite this, Mr VT drove away.

Afterwards, Mr VT contacted the chief operating officer to confirm his employment status and was instructed to email his account of events. Mr DD also submitted his account, which the COO accepted without further investigation, leading to Mr VT’s dismissal that same day.

While the tribunal dismissed Mr VT’s claims of unfair dismissal due to his short tenure, it found that Mr DD’s repeated misnaming of Mr VT amounted to racial harassment. Employment Judge Cowen ruled that this behaviour violated Mr VT’s dignity and created an “intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, and offensive” environment, relating directly to Mr VT’s race given the cultural significance of his name.