Giving a colleague a ‘rude' nickname could cost workers thousands
Office staff who give rude nicknames to colleagues could have to pay thousands following a groundbreaking ruling.
Leo Foster, a senior in-house solicitor, has been fined £15,000 and ordered to pay £16,000 costs for referring to co-workers in his team as 'Jabba the Hutt', 'Pol Pot', 'The Idiot', 'Mad Paul' and 'The Twittering Fool'.
Mr Foster, who worked at multinational bank BNP Paribas in London, also branded a colleague 'Hu She', a solicitors disciplinary tribunal heard.
She pronounced her name 'Who-ee', the hearing was told, but Foster was inspired by the 'Who he' joke in Private Eye, the satirical magazine.
Foster admitted using 'inappropriate, unprofessional and rude nicknames' on 'numerous occasions' over the course of many months - including in emails.
He accepted that his colleagues did not consent to the use of the nicknames, but insisted that he never had any racist intention towards his co-worker with the Chinese name.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority took action after allegations against Mr Foster emerged in business newspaper City A.M.
On other occasions, he described bosses at the bank as 'c---s' and questioned whether one was autistic, the hearing heard.
In an email, Mr Foster wrote: 'Who the f--- is this?' while in another he said: 'Looks like a bunch of c---s.'
The Law Society reported: 'Foster's lawyer told the SDT he was extremely apologetic and had not intended to cause anyone offence or hurt.'
It added: 'The misconduct had taken place during a stressful time and was a small fraction of the correspondence he sent.'
The tribunal heard Foster had been 'disgruntled with management changes' at the bank.
In its judgement, the SDT said: 'Mr Foster had found the changes to the working environment difficult, but he had failed to handle this with the standards expected of a solicitor of his experience and standing.'
The hearing was told that Foster had 'negotiated an exit from the bank', quietly retiring in 2022.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
U.S., Chinese delegates in London to talk trade, rare earths
June 9 (UPI) -- Delegates from the United States and China are set to meet Monday in London after a phone call between the nations' leaders seemingly led to a cooling of tensions related to their otherwise heated recent trade dispute. "We are a nation that champions free trade and have always been clear that a trade war is in nobody's interests, so we welcome these talks," said a British government spokesperson. The U.K. has provided the space for the countries to chat but hasn't publicly disclosed its location. American attendees are slated to include U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, while Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng will lead his country's delegation. It is expected the discussion will put a fair amount of focus on the rare earth minerals situation. The Trump administration had expected China to back down on export restrictions it had imposed in April on such minerals after talks held in May. China imposed those restrictions in response to tariffs levied by Trump on Chinese goods. The resulting trade disruption has led to a 2.9% decrease on exports to the United States from April to May, the decrease from May 2024 is 3.4% and the cumulative year-on-year decrease from January to May is at 4.9%, according to Chinese customs data. However President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping spoke on the phone last week, and the conversation was reportedly so friendly it not only led to Monday's meeting but each invited the other to make a personal visit. American and Chinese representatives had met last month in Geneva and reportedly reached an agreement to suspend most of the tariffs that had been reciprocally imposed, but both countries have since been accused of agreement violations by the other.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Authorities make shocking discovery after getting tip from hotel worker about suspicious suitcases: 'Heard rustling sounds'
Japanese police arrested three Chinese nationals after thousands of hermit crabs were found in their suitcase. The three Chinese suspects, Liao Zhibin, 24, Song Zhenhao, 26, and Guo Jiawei, 27, were found to have hundreds of pounds worth of live hermit crabs in their possession on the Amami Islands in Japan. A Japanese police officer told CNN, "[A hotel worker] heard rustling sounds coming from a suitcase that was being held in storage." The spiral-shelled hermit crab species that they attempted to steal is protected under Japanese law and is said to be a "national natural monument" because of its value culturally and scientifically. It is unknown why exactly the men were stealing the crabs at this time, but it seems like another classic case of illegal animal smuggling. The topic of animal smuggling is a dark and cruel one that environmentalists everywhere are fighting against. By illegally smuggling foreign species, perpetrators can introduce invasive animals into ecosystems, disrupting their natural balance and harming native wildlife. Invasive species threaten biodiversity and strain environmental conservation efforts. As for hermit crabs, specifically, this is a species that has already endured a lot in the face of the changing climate. Numerous reports have stated that hermit crab species in some areas have begun using trash and waste as shells, due to the large amount of litter on the beaches. With these hermit crabs already fighting an uphill battle, it is not a surprise that Japanese law enforcement is taking this case very seriously. Do you think America has a plastic waste problem? Definitely Only in some areas Not really I'm not sure Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Animal smuggling and the side effects of introducing an invasive species are significantly harmful to the goal of creating a better, cleaner future for all. This is why countries, like Japan, have laws in place to safeguard against these practices. While it varies for each country, punishments for crimes like these are often heavy fines or significant jail time. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Maryland Supreme Court upholds ban on gun possession in some non-felony cases
(Photo by U.S. Customs and Border Protection) The Maryland Supreme Court upheld a state law banning gun possession by people who have been sentenced to two years or more in prison, calling it comparable to a ban on gun possession by felons, whether the underlying crime was a felony or not. Despite a string of recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have greatly strengthened gun rights, the high court has not suggested that the Second Amendment 'prohibits the enactment of laws banning the possession of guns by categories of persons thought by a legislature to present a special danger of misuse,' the Maryland court said Friday. Maryland's law is such a law, said the opinion by Maryland Chief Judge Matthew Fader. 'Based on our conclusion that § 5-133(b)(2) [the challenged law] is the equivalent of a prohibition on the possession of firearms by felons, and the United States Supreme Court's repeated references to such prohibitions as presumptively constitutional, we conclude that it satisfies Second Amendment scrutiny and is facially constitutional,' Fader wrote. But in a lengthy dissent, Justice Jonathan Biran said that the U.S. Supreme Court rulings rely on historical context, and that the majority could not point to any previous law that 'disarmed a citizen who violated a legal norm of society but was not viewed as a threat to public safety.' 'The logical conclusion of the Majority's historical analysis is that the General Assembly may make infractions such as jaywalking or exceeding the posted speed limit the basis for permanent firearms disqualification by increasing the maximum penalty for those offenses to imprisonment for more than one year,' Biran wrote in a 65-page dissent, 22 pages of which were a history of British and U.S. gun laws. The law was challenged by Robert L. Fooks, who was charged in Wicomico County in 2021 with allegedly stealing firearms from relatives to sell at pawn shops. Included in the 14-count indictment were two gun possession charges based on Fooks' 2017 conviction for 'constructive criminal contempt,' for which he received a sentence of 4 years and 6 months. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The 2017 conviction was for 'willful failure to pay child support,' according to court records. The ruling said constructive criminal contempt is a common law offense that is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor and does not some with a minimum or maximum sentence. Fooks pleaded guilty in 2021 to the gun charges and agreed to pay restitution to a relative, in exchange for the other charges being dropped. But he retained his right to challenge the gun conviction on Second Amendment grounds. Fooks claimed on appeal that his conviction runs afoul of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that say the burden is on the state to prove the need for gun restrictions, not on the individual to protect gun rights. Banning gun possession for the conviction of a nonviolent crime is not the same as banning someone convicted of a violent crime or a felony, he argued. The Appellate Court of Maryland disagreed, upholding the law affirming Fooks' convictions. The Maryland Court of Appeals agreed, saying there is 'no magic to … the word 'felony,'' but that courts must look to the intent of lawmakers who decided which crimes should merit a ban on gun possession. 'The common thread among felon dispossession statutes is thus not any magic afforded to the use of the word 'felony' but a general intent to prohibit the possession of firearms by individuals who have committed offenses the respective legislative body has deemed serious enough to be eligible for a significant term of imprisonment,' Fader wrote. In major Second Amendment rulings over the last 16 years, 'Justices constituting a majority of the Supreme Court of the United States have identified laws like § 5-133(b)(2) as presumptively lawful,' Fader wrote, and Maryland should, too. 'The General Assembly, like the United States Congress and other state legislatures around the country, has concluded that individuals convicted of serious criminal offenses should not be permitted to possess firearms, regardless of whether the particular offenses they previously committed are themselves violent,' he wrote. Biran said the majority opinion was 'well written and its conclusions may be proven to be correct after the Supreme Court decides a case like this one,' but he disagreed. The recent history of U.S. Supreme Court cases have taken the permanent disqualification of a person from gun ownership because of a nonviolent criminal conviction 'off the table,' he wrote. 'When the State seeks to prosecute a person for possessing a firearm based on a prior conviction, the State meets its burden … if it shows that the predicate conviction was for an offense that is violent in nature,' Biran wrote in dissent. 'Mr. Fooks's predicate conviction is for constructive criminal contempt. That offense is not violent in nature,' he wrote. 'It follows that, as applied to Mr. Fooks, PS § 5-133(b)(2) violates the Second Amendment.'
