Engineer wins £90k after boss said ethnic minorities 'deserved Covid'

A senior software engineer has been awarded almost £90,000 in a race claim after his boss described someone in his village as 'Indian Bill'.

Heerendra Gohil, who is of Indian descent, also accused managing director Paul Jennings of saying that ethnic minorities 'deserved Covid' during a heated discussion about the pandemic, an employment tribunal heard.

The engineer said he felt 'sick in his mouth' after hearing Mr Jenning's remarks and alleged that 'degrading' use of 'Indian Bill' is a 'constant reminder of being seen differently'.

It was heard Mr Jenning's used the reference four times to describe one of his neighbour's in Warwickshire and despite trying to argue that Indian was 'just a title', later claimed he 'shouldn't be called this' and said 'I call him Bill'.

After Mr Gohil was sacked, he sued the automotive company and has now been awarded compensation from an employment judge who ruled the managing director's comments were 'inherently racist'.

The tribunal, held in Birmingham, heard Mr Gohil started 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'.

In the 'heated discussion', Mr Gohil alleged that the director shared his views on the Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic [BAME] society, and 'why we deserved COVID'.

He claimed that Mr Jenning's said that it was the 'blatant arrogance, ignorance, inability to follow basic instructions' from such communities, with 'generations living together', which had led to the disease 'spreading'.

Mr Gohil alleged that his boss told him he had discussed this with someone in his village, who he referred to as 'Indian Bill'.

The tribunal heard Mr Gohil felt 'shocked, offended, degraded and disgusted' at the comments and as if he were a 'like a vulnerable, lower class person'. But, the managing director's recollection of the conversation differed.

He told the tribunal that they discussed media coverage that 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 - who was accused of having a 'reputation for saying offensive things' - did use the phrase 'Indian Bill' as part of a conversation about the spread of Covid 19.

The following month, Mr Gohil met with his line manager to report the conversation, who told him he would 'speak to senior management but he had to be careful'.

'You don't bring easy things to me do you,' the engineer was told.

After multiple 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 Jenning's will 'try to make it difficult for me after this'.

The engineer told a grievance meeting - which was dealt with by the company's Germany office - that he was 'shocked' and felt 'sick in the mouth' after hearing the director's comments in July.

Mr Gohil spoke of another incident, in which he claimed Mr Jenning's 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 alleged bosses - who described him as 'antagonistic' - said it would be, but this was later dismissed by the panel.

An investigation meeting with Mr Jenning's was held later that month, in which the director was asked whether he had ever referred to someone as 'Indian Bill'.

The boss said that 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'.

He said that this individual, in his village in Warwickshire, 'shouldn't be called this' and said 'I call him Bill', and said Indian is 'just a title'.

But, Mr Gohil said 'being labelled Indian is a constant reminder of being seen differently'.

The panel noted that Mr Jenning's 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 to undergo a 'reorganisation' and a 'Redundancy Selection Matrix' was used to identify employees who were 'at risk'.

Mr Gohil wrote to colleagues, informing them that he would be 'targeted' because of the 'treatment I have been subjected to'.

He was informed that his grievance had not been successful and was sacked in December 2021.

It was heard that bosses concluded Mr Jenning's had used the term 'Indian Bill' - but '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.

EJ Flood ruled the phrase 'Indian Bill' is 'inherently racist' as it involves 'labelling someone in relation to their race, nationality or cultural background'.

The panel said that Mr Gohil was 'clearly upset and affected' as his managers were 'effectively condoning the use of a racist phrase' by not upholding his grievance. However, they noted it was 'not used deliberately' to cause offence.

Of his comments which said BAME individuals 'deserved Covid', the panel ruled that they were 'highly inappropriate' and violated Mr Gohil's dignity.

'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,' they said.

Other claims made by Mr Gohil were dismissed.