Calling women ‘birds’ is ‘plainly sexist’, a judge has ruled

A UK judge has ruled that calling women ‘birds’ is ‘plainly sexist’ and to even use the term jokingly is ‘foolish’ in a landmark discrimination case.

Judge John Crosfill was ruling on the case of a Barclays investment banker who won a sex discrimination claim after her boss repeatedly referred to herself and other female employees as ‘birds’.

According to the Daily Mail, the tribunal heard how Anca Lacatus grew uncomfortable after her boss James Kinghorn continued to use the term, even after she had asked him to stop. Kinghorn defended his use of the word, however, by saying he was being ‘light-hearted’ with the term, but the tribunal ruled the term is ‘plainly sexist’.

The tribunal, based in East London, heard that Lacatus was initially reluctant to complain about her boss’s sexist language out of fear it would have been damaging to her career, but is now set to receive compensation for his treatment of her.

Barclays

In a statement, Lacatus, who worked as a £46,000-a-year analyst for Barclays in what was her first job in investment banking since graduating from university, said her boss had first 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 allegedly continued to say it in a deliberate effort to make her feel uncomfortable.

The tribunal heard how Kinghorn assumed Lacatus saw his use of the word ‘bird’ as light-hearted banter, and that he was joking when he told her not to report his behaviour to HR. At the tribunal, he also accepted his language had been inappropriate.

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.

@fotoloredo / Unsplash

“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.”

At the tribunal, Lacatus also won her claim that Barclays failed to accommodate to her request to change her working hours as a result of her endometriosis and anxiety diagnosis’, with her being expected to work past 7pm and between forty to forty-eight hours a week on average. Judge Crosfill slammed this as a ‘serious act of discrimination and one that was exceedingly thoughtless’.