Workplace Nicknames – When can they be a step too far?

  Though workplace nicknames can indicate a relaxed and lively workplace, they can also be taken too far if they relate to a protected characteristic. Employers should note that “it was only banter” is no defence. Frequently tribunals have rejected the view that a harassment claim can be defended on the basis that the comments were “only banter”. This is because one person’s humour can seem like an offensive and degrading comment to another person. The intention of the alleged offender does not matter. See below the examples of workplace nicknames that have resulted in discrimination claims against employers.   “Gramps”: age discrimination It can be age discrimination to give an employee a nickname that relates to his or her age. Examples include calling an older worker the “old fogey” or calling a younger worker the “stroppy teenager”. The successful age discrimination claim in Dove v Brown & Newirth Ltd is a classic example of an inappropriate age-related nickname in the workplace. For years, the claimant was referred to by younger colleagues as “Gramps”. While he did not complain at the time, following his dismissal he put the nickname forward as strong evidence that his colleagues had ageist attitudes.   “Borat”: race discrimination Ruda v Tei Ltd is an example of an ill-advised workplace nickname resulting in a successful discrimination claim. The tribunal upheld a Polish welder’s race discrimination claim over the nickname “Borat”, on the basis that the name evoked stereotypes about eastern Europeans. Borat is the name of a Kazakhstani film and television character created by Sacha Baron Cohen. Giving a worker a nickname based on his or her country of origin, or stereotypes from that part of the world, risks a finding of harassment and direct discrimination.   “Ironside”: disability discrimination In Davies v Remploy, a wheelchair user had brought a workplace disability harassment claim on the basis that a manager nicknamed him “Ironside”. This name was a reference to a television series about a former police detective who used a wheelchair as he was paralysed him from the waist down. It was held by the tribunal that the manager’s conduct had the effect of violating the claimant’s dignity, and the tribunal upheld the disability harassment claim.   “Yoda”: age discrimination The employment tribunal in Nolan v CD Bramall Dealership Ltd t/a Evans Halshaw Motorhouse Workshop held that the employer discriminated against the claimant by making him redundant because he was close to retirement. In upholding the age discrimination claim, the tribunal highlighted that evidence of age bias included colleagues nicknaming the claimant “Yoda”, the character from Star Wars. A key characteristic of Jedi Master Yoda is his extreme age, with Wookieepedia stating that he was 900 years old at the time of his death.   “Inspector Clouseau”: race discrimination In the case of Basile v Royal College of General Practitioners and others, the employment tribunal acknowledged that a French porter who worked in London had been called “Inspector Clouseau” by some employees. The tribunal said that the character is a “British comic creation of a stereotypically bumbling French character”. The tribunal concluded that it was reasonable for the claimant to view this nickname as creating a humiliating environment for him. As it had been many years since the nickname had been used, this part of the claim was ultimately rejected as being outside the time limit.   “Sooty and Sweep”: race discrimination The case of Buckle and Mitchell v Brook Daihatsu involved a claim of unpleasant racial abuse. Two black employees who were called “Sooty and Sweep” by their colleagues, were found to have suffered race discrimination. The tribunal was “satisfied that those nicknames had a racial connotation” and the name calling continued even after the employees complained to their employer.   “Thick Paddy”: race discrimination This was another case that exemplified where an employee suffered race discrimination from his colleagues’ remarks. The tribunal heard in the case of McAuley v Auto Alloys Foundry Ltd and Taylor that an Irishman working in England was subjected to repeated anti-Irish remarks by colleagues. He was nicknamed “thick Paddy” and comments including “typical Irish” were made to him when he made a mistake. The employee was dismissed after complaining to his employer. The tribunal held that the claimant was dismissed “principally because he was an Irishman who would not take Irish jokes lying down”.