The former chief executive of a City firm thought she had revealed confidential business information when the company’s founder rebuked her over a racist term during a celebratory dinner, an employment tribunal heard yesterday.
Nicola Foulston was giving evidence in an ongoing hearing which centres on claims of racial discrimination, unfair dismissal and breach of contract at City firm Rosenblatt. The claims are brought by Noel Deans, head of employment at the firm until February 2020.
Rosenblatt’s parent company, RBL Law Limited, former chief executive Nicola Foulston, founder and senior partner Ian Rosenblatt and director and compliance officer Anthony Field deny all claims against them.
Deans, who is representing himself, asked Foulston about a dinner held at Ian Rosenblatt’s home at which Foulston used a racist word. She denied that while speaking about business opportunities she had said ‘like spotting a ###### in the field’ but had instead said ‘in the woodpile’.
Deans said if Foulston did say woodpile rather than field, he would have had a different image in his mind to the one he recalled, of lynching.
Foulston said: ‘I stand by what I said in my [witness] statement. I put it to you that is the truth, regrettable as it is, it is the truth.’
When asked if she thought using the word was appropriate, Foulston said: ‘Of course not, no.’ When asked why she had said it, she replied: ‘As I said in my statement, it was an error. I have not made it since.’
Deans said: ‘You have not said you did not make the comment before.’
Foulston said: ‘I have no recollection of ever using it.’ Describing the comment as ‘deeply regrettable’, Foulston told the tribunal she had felt ‘embarrassed and ashamed’ and she did not know what the phrase meant ‘in specific terms’. She added: ‘I saw [the meaning] as "an obstacle I was yet to overcome".’
Describing Rosenblatt's reaction, Foulston said: ‘He was not laughing, he said “Nicky” in a really loud way, which is what stopped me in my tracks. I thought I had said something wrong in the context of my speech at first.
‘Ian did not laugh. I did say “what have I said?” but he was not laughing. He seemed unbelievably embarrassed for me. I realised when he drew my attention to the misuse, or the phrase that should not be used, I said I did not mean to say anything like that. I was discombobulated, I thought at first I had revealed some confidential information.
‘It took me a moment to realise when he pointed out what I had done, and I was unbelievably embarrassed.’
Asked why she had not later raised the issue with Deans, Foulston said: ‘I believed that our relationship was such at the time that you knew it was a horrendous error on my part and I believed because you had not raised it with me you knew it was not something I would willingly have done or said.
‘After the IPO dinner, I never raised it with you specifically out of embarrassment and you never raised it with me, so I took it you accepted my apology and took it as an error, a genuine mistake. We continued to socialise, I had no reason to think differently.
‘I think the phrase itself is degrading and is appalling. I was not using it, intentionally or in error, in a degrading or humiliating way. I was not using it to you [Deans] or anyone, it was used in the context of an audit. The context was not degrading or humiliating in my opinion.’
Asked about her witness statement in which she said Rosenblatt's view of Deans was unconnected with his race, she said: ‘I have never seen Ian behave or talk in any way that would give me a cause for concern regarding his views on race.’
The hearing continues.
