Banker who sued Barclays after boss called women 'birds' wins £50k

A female investment banker who sued Barclays for sex discrimination after her boss kept calling women 'birds' has won £50,000. 

Anca Lacatus has been awarded the compensation payout after an employment tribunal ruled it is 'plainly sexist' to use the term to describe women. 

Ms Lacatus had to repeatedly tell James Kinghorn not to use the word because it made her feel uncomfortable, it was heard.

Mr Kinghorn defended his use of the word, saying he was being light-hearted, but the tribunal found it is sexist and that even using it jokingly is 'foolish'.

Ms Lacatus sought damages of over £1.3million against Barclays after she won claims of sex discrimination and a form of disability discrimination.

However, she has been awarded £49,729 at a compensation hearing at East London Employment Tribunal.

The majority of the payout - £48,202 - has been awarded to cover her disability discrimination claim. Barclays failed to accommodate her request to adjust her working hours because she suffered from endometriosis and anxiety.

She won £1,526 in relation to the 'birds' sex discrimination claim.

The Romanian worked as a £46,000-a-year analyst for Barclays in what was her first job in investment banking after completing an Investments and Finance master as Queen Mary University in London.

Read More

Calling women 'birds' is 'plainly sexist', judge rules at tribunal of female Barclays investment banker who wins sex discrimination claim against her boss

Ms Lacatus said her boss Mr Kinghorn referred to a female employee as a 'bird' in February 2018.

She said that she immediately told him off for using the phrase but he then continued to say it in an effort to make her feel uncomfortable.

And Mr Kinghorn told her she should not report him to HR for referring to women in such an offensive way, she said.

The tribunal heard Mr Kinghorn assumed Ms Lacatus saw his use of the word 'bird' as light-hearted banter and that he was joking about reporting the behaviour to HR.

But at the tribunal he accepted his language had been inappropriate and the judge branded it as plainly sexist.

Judge John Crosfill said: 'The use of the phrase ''bird'' was a misplaced use of irony which inadvertently caused offence.

'We accept that when this was pointed out to [Mr Kinghorn], he ultimately got the message and stopped trying to be funny.

'We consider that it was very foolish to assume that anybody else would find this language amusing.

'We find that it is likely that it took some time before Ms Lacatus was sufficiently blunt that the message hit home.

'The language is plainly sexist (whether misplaced irony or not).'

Judge Crosfill said that Mr Kinghorn did not set out to deliberately offend Ms Lacatus but that he used the word more often than he was prepared to admit.

The tribunal also ruled that Ms Lacatus would have been reluctant to speak out about her boss's sexist language at the time as she would have been worried about the damage it could do to her career.

She did not want to be seen as a 'troublemaker', the judge said.

At the latest compensation hearing, Judge Johnfill said it was only appropriate to award her £1,000 plus interest for the 'birds' comment.

He said: 'We depreciate the use of the phrase ''birds'' as a reference to women in the professional environment but we would not regard the conduct that we have held to be unlawful as particularly grave or serious.

'It was very much at the lower end of what might reasonably be regarded as a detriment. Taking into account the context we would anticipate the use of the phrase ''birds'' to cause some annoyance and irritation.

'Anything beyond that would in our view be a surprising response. We have no doubt that [Ms Lacatus] was offended by James Kinghorn's misplaced irony.

'We have found that it was only after she made her feelings clear on several occasions that he stopped using the phrase 'birds'.

'Having regard to the evidence as a whole we find that [Ms Lacatus] was mildly offended by the use of the phrase 'birds' and became irritated when it was repeated.

'That corresponds with the reaction we would have anticipated. We bear in mind that [Ms Lacatus] had far greater and more serious concerns at this time.'

Ms Lacatus also won her claim that Barclays failed to adjust her working hours because she suffered from endometriosis and anxiety.

Ms Lacatus was often expected to work late past 7pm and worked between 40 and 48 hours a week on average.

She 'became progressively more exhausted' as her illness became worse and was placed at a 'substantial disadvantage compared to others without a disability'.

The judge said: 'Barclays failure to adjust Ms Lacatus' hours is in our view a serious act of discrimination and one that was exceedingly thoughtless.'

Ms Lacatus was signed off in January 2019 and was later made redundant by the bank.