The discrimination suit of a black ambulance driver who claimed the phrase “ten a cent” was “racist” and related to slavery was rejected.
A black ambulance driver accused his white supervisor of racism for uttering the phrase “ten a cent.”
Matthew Johnson stated that the phrase uttered by Dan Price has “slavery roots.”
The judge rejected the case, and Mr. Johnson was ordered to pay DHL’s costs of £1,200.
A judge dismissed the case of a black ambulance driver who sued for racism when his boss used the term “ten a penny.”
After Matthew Johnson informed DHL CEO Dan Price that he was going on a month-long honeymoon just one month after joining the company, Price used the phrase.
The employment tribunal was informed that Mr. Price’s remark implied that ambulance drivers like Mr. Johnson were readily available.
Mr. Johnson sued his employers to a tribunal, claiming he was discriminated against and that the term originated from the slave trade.
A judge decided that none of the ‘highly trained’ driver’s supervisors were aware that the phrase could be associated with slavery.
Matthew Johnson, a DHL-employed ambulance driver, alleged that his supervisor Dan Price’s use of the phrase “ten a penny” was racist.
The Watford tribunal was informed that Mr. Johnson began working at the organization in March 2018.
He informed Mr. Price about his forthcoming honeymoon the following month.
Mr. Price, who is white, subsequently stated that he “would not have hired” Mr. Johnson if he had known this and used the phrase “ten a cent” to describe him.
Mr. Johnson complained that this expression “refers to slavery.”
Mr. Price, however, maintained that he used this statement with everyone and that it had nothing to do with Mr. Johnson’s race.
The panel heard that (Mr. Johnson) claims the phrase ’10 for a penny’ is a racist idiom with roots in the slave trade.
‘(DHL) argued that the general understanding of the expression does not have a racial connotation, but rather refers to something that is common or readily available, and the likely meaning of the above expression, if used, was that (DHL) could easily find ambulance drivers with (Mr. Johnson’s) experience and skills.
“(Mr. Johnson) claims he did not appreciate the statement and viewed it as racist at the time it was made. Specifically that he viewed it as an allusion to slavery.’
Mr. Johnson was compelled to take a drug test after sustaining a leg injury at the Royal Free Hospital (shown) that necessitated hospitalization.
The tribunal heard that following this event, Mr. Price and another senior figure informed Mr. Johnson that he could not park his Porsche across two parking spaces in the business car park.
The tribunal heard that Mr. Price then approached the vehicle and stated that Mr. Johnson must be a drug dealer in order to afford such a vehicle.
The court was informed that the driver was later involved in multiple events, including a collision with a stretcher and a collision between a car and an ambulance.
The tribunal was informed that during a visit to a patient’s house, an incident involving a wheelchair resulted in a colleague being concussed and Mr. Johnson was penalized.
In January 2020, Mr. Johnson filed a grievance regarding his treatment, alleging that he had been discriminated against in relation to the first two incidents because he had been subjected to two drug tests by the company while none of his crewmates had been, despite the fact that they were the’responsible’ parties.
While still an employee, the ambulance driver sued his employers for discrimination, harassment, and victimization on the basis of race. Since then, he has left the company.
The judge was not convinced that the DHL executive was aware of the (claimed) relationship between the phrase and slavery.
Regarding the ‘ten a penny’ remark, Employment Judge Paddy Quill stated that the evidence revealed that Mr. Price had made the remark multiple times to numerous white employees.
He stated that Mr. Johnson’s perspective regarding the origin of the expression was insufficient to convince him that Mr. Price was aware of the purported connection.
He stated, “The context of the remark was that Mr. Johnson would be absent for approximately four weeks.
According to Mr. Johnson’s statement (which we agree), this dissatisfied Mr. Price, who claimed that he would have hired another employee instead.
Mr. Johnson has not demonstrated that he was referring to another black employee, nor has he demonstrated that Mr. Price was more likely to respond with these words to Mr. Johnson as a black employee than if a white employee had informed him of a four-week absence for a honeymoon shortly after beginning work.
Regarding Mr. Johnson’s allegations of racial harassment through drug testing, Judge Quill stated, “Mr. Johnson has not persuaded us that [DHLbehavior ]’s was racially motivated.”
In dismissing the complaint, the tribunal ordered Mr. Johnson to contribute £1,200 to DHL’s costs.