Calling someone a 'dark horse' is not racist, employment judge rules after black worker tried to sue Citizens Advice Bureau because her manager used the phrase
An employment judge at The Leeds Employment Tribunal found that the popular phrase refers to someone or something having hidden talents and achieving success unexpectedly.
Calling someone a 'dark horse' is not racist, employment judge rules after black worker tried to sue Citizens Advice Bureau because her manager used the phrase
An employment judge at The Leeds Employment Tribunal found that the popular phrase refers to someone or something having hidden talents and achieving success unexpectedly.
The Headline, and the Mail article, are inaccurate.
Context is everything in this sort of case-which will always turn on its own facts.
The key is what the purpose behind using the phrase is. Was it meant to demean etc. Or not?
It is true to say that the phrase does not ordinarily have negative connotations. But, similarly, there will undoubtedly be occasions when someone uses it in a racially demeaning way.
I vividly recall a Solicitor who could only see everything as to do with race. Tried to shoehorn it into every case. Just as bad as trying to pretend that seemingly innocent phrases are never used in an unacceptable way.
What the employment judge was really saying is this. The saying is 1 that ordinarily is not racist. And that in this particular instance it was not racist, not least because there appeared to be no evidence in support of that contention.
Could they be called a "Dark Horse" in a "Light Hearted" manner ?
Yes. And, on occasion, perfectly legally.
But it is unwise. For example, I bet this cost the CAB an awful lot of money that they could not afford. Which means a whole bunch of deserving cases don't get the help they need from the CAB.
A sensible employer always knows when they have an employee who is likely to go to an Employment Tribunal with a "litany of complaints". To give an example, the "dark horse" comment was not made to the Claimant-it was made to someone else in her earshot.
I recall being, many years ago, in exactly this sort of situation. Someone brought a Grievance, alleging every single member of staff was a "backstabber". Except me and 1 other Member of staff-who she said were "frontstabbers".
Comments
Context is everything in this sort of case-which will always turn on its own facts.
The key is what the purpose behind using the phrase is. Was it meant to demean etc. Or not?
It is true to say that the phrase does not ordinarily have negative connotations. But, similarly, there will undoubtedly be occasions when someone uses it in a racially demeaning way.
I vividly recall a Solicitor who could only see everything as to do with race. Tried to shoehorn it into every case. Just as bad as trying to pretend that seemingly innocent phrases are never used in an unacceptable way.
What the employment judge was really saying is this. The saying is 1 that ordinarily is not racist. And that in this particular instance it was not racist, not least because there appeared to be no evidence in support of that contention.
Not that it never is.
But it is unwise. For example, I bet this cost the CAB an awful lot of money that they could not afford. Which means a whole bunch of deserving cases don't get the help they need from the CAB.
A sensible employer always knows when they have an employee who is likely to go to an Employment Tribunal with a "litany of complaints". To give an example, the "dark horse" comment was not made to the Claimant-it was made to someone else in her earshot.
I recall being, many years ago, in exactly this sort of situation. Someone brought a Grievance, alleging every single member of staff was a "backstabber". Except me and 1 other Member of staff-who she said were "frontstabbers".
Which we took as a compliment