he was "shocked" and felt "sick in the mouth" at the comments.
A senior software engineer was awarded almost £90,000 in a race claim after his boss said ethnic minorities “deserved Covid” during a heated discussion about the pandemic.
Heerendra Gohil was also shocked managing director Paul Jennings told him that he referred to someone in his village as “Indian Bill”.
Mr Gohil felt “shocked, offended, degraded and disgusted” at the comments and as if he were “like a vulnerable, lower class person”.
But Mr Jennings told the tribunal that they discussed media coverage of the pandemic and he said ethnic minority people were more “susceptible to catching Covid-19” and claimed Mr Gohil said this was because “Britain was a racist country”.
Employment Judge Geraldine Flood said Mr Jennings did use the phrase “Indian Bill” as part of a conversation about the spread of Covid 19.
Mr Gohil began working as a senior software engineer at Continental Automotive Trading UK in January 2008.
In July 2020, Mr Gohil visited the Birmingham office to collect a new laptop and return a signed copy of his furlough letter.
During the visit, the engineer chatted to Mr Jennings, who told him he “could be better if people stopped spreading bloody Covid”.
Mr Gohil had reported the conversation to his line manager, who told him he would “speak to senior management but he had to be careful”.
The engineer was told: “You don’t bring easy things to me do you.”
After several attempts to chase the complaint, Mr Gohil raised a formal grievance in May 2021.
The complaints contained many topics, including allegations of fear, bullying, intimidation, discrimination and racism.
He said he was fearful of “repercussions or reprisals” from raising concerns and said that he knows Mr Jennings will “try to make it difficult for me after this”.
Mr Gohil told a grievance meeting that he was “shocked” and felt “sick in the mouth” at the comments.
In another incident, Mr Jennings allegedly said a pair of criminals who carjacked a colleague “must be black or Indian”.
During investigation meetings, Mr Gohil asked his bosses whether they thought it would be ‘acceptable’ to call people ‘Jamaican Bob’, Chinese Jiang’, ‘Pakistani Mo’.
The engineer claimed bosses said it would be but this was later dismissed by the panel.
During an investigation meeting, Mr Jennings was asked whether he had ever referred to someone as ‘Indian Bill’.
He said there was someone who lived in his village and that people did refer to him as ‘Indian Bill’, stating however that “it is wrong and you don’t refer to someone as that”.
Mr Jennings said the individual “shouldn’t be called this” and said “I call him Bill”, claiming Indian is “just a title”.
But Mr Gohil argued that “being labelled Indian is a constant reminder of being seen differently”.
The panel noted that Mr Jennings used the expression four times in front of people who were of Indian or Asian heritage and on one occasion, another senior colleague “laughed” at what was said.
In the summer of 2021, the business began undergoing a “reorganisation” and a ‘Redundancy Selection Matrix’ was used to identify employees who were “at risk”.
In a letter to colleagues, Mr Gohil said he would be “targeted” because of the “treatment I have been subjected to”.
After being told his grievance was unsuccessful, Mr Gohil was sacked in December 2021.
Bosses concluded that while Mr Jennings had said “Indian Bill”, it was “not in an offensive way” and whilst it was “inappropriate”, it was “not racist“.
After suing the manufacturer, Mr Gohil’s claims of racial harassment, victimisation and unfair dismissal have been upheld and he has been awarded £89,125 in compensation.
He also won claims relating to being subjected to detriment for making protected disclosures.
The employment judge ruled that ‘Indian Bill’ is “inherently racist” as it involves “labelling someone in relation to their race, nationality or cultural background”.
Of his comments which said BAME individuals “deserved Covid”, the panel ruled that they were “highly inappropriate” and violated Mr Gohil’s dignity.
They said: “We conclude that whilst the restructuring itself was genuine and unconnected to the protected acts, it was a convenient and timely opportunity for the decision-makers to ensure that [Mr Gohil] was selected for redundancy and ultimately dismissed.”
Other claims made by Mr Gohil were dismissed.
Loading ...