19-05-2025
Manager sacked after standing up with no pants on work video call claimed he was being racially discriminated against for being made to work on a bank holiday
A £60,000-a-year manager who was sacked after exposing his genitals during a work video call because he stood up with no pants on has had his case thrown out.
The digital production manager for Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) was fired on January 30 last year after a disastrous virtual meeting in which he inadvertently flashed his colleagues.
But the employee took the firm to a tribunal, claiming unfair dismissal as well as racial discrimination.
His dismissal centred around a Microsoft Teams work call with a consultancy firm on May 8 2023 - which was a Bank Holiday because of King Charles III's Coronation.
During the call, the manager stood up to adjust a cable behind his computer, but stunned his colleagues as he was wearing nothing from the waist down and his genitals were on show.
A tribunal at London Central heard that an investigation was launched after a complaint was lodged by colleagues.
After his line manager started a probe, the worker claimed: 'That was a bank holiday and l did not realise when l folded the laptop camera was on and pointing to the floor and then immediately shut down the camera so that don't know what was seen in the floor [sic].'
The unnamed employee, who joined the FSCS in 2020, admitted he did not always 'wear full dress' at home and added: 'It is just an accident and apologies.'
The manager argued that he was not culpable for what happened because the meeting took place on a Bank Holiday, adding: 'Expecting me to work during public holidays is a racial discrimination.'
The tribunal heard that he holds dual Australian and British citizenship but he is Indian as he was born there.
Sabah Carter, a senior figure at the FSCS, rejected the suggestion the dress code did not apply on public holidays.
She found his actions had damaged the company's reputation and said he 'had not offered any reassurance that the incident wouldn't happen again'.
And she noted he had 'not shown any remorse or apologised for his actions but rather sought to blame the external contractors on the call'.
Ms Carter also pointed out his inconsistent evidence who initially admitted his genitals were visible before claiming he was wearing 'nude-coloured underwear'.
As well as claiming unfair dismissal, he also claimed racial discrimination on over being passed over for a promotion.
The employee said: 'The entire process and outcome is nothing but racial discrimination, mental harassment, unfair dismissal.'
But the tribunal ruled that he had not been made to work on the bank holiday and had actually chosen to.
'Even if he were required to work inappropriately, that is no reason for appearing in a state of undress,' they noted.
Although the panel accepted he had initially apologised for the incident, they found he later 'sought to obscure or deflect blame' and did not 'consistently show remorse'.
The tribunal panel threw out all of his claims for unfair dismissal and racial discrimination.
They concluded that his application for a promotion had been 'poor and failed to reveal sufficient relevant experience'.
'The position applied for was approximately twice the claimant's salary and FSCS was seeking relevant experience, particularly in heading departments,' they noted.
Employment Judge Hodgson concluded: 'We find that the claimant chose not to wear either trousers or underwear... instead he deliberately chose to be naked from the waist down.
'This led to an obvious risk. If at any point he should need to stand, it was likely that he would reveal his genitals, if his camera was on.
'The claimant was an employee in a leadership role. He was dealing with external consultants. He should have realised that being naked was inappropriate, regardless of any policy.
'If he chose to wear no clothes from the waist down, he should have taken care to ensure that this fact did not become apparent.
'The claimant's action caused embarrassment to the employer and was inconsistent with his position and role.'
Throwing out the claim, the judge said: 'All the claims of race discrimination fail. The claim of unfair dismissal is not well founded and is dismissed. The claim of wrongful dismissal fails and is dismissed.'
