A manager at the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) has lost a claim for unfair dismissal and race discrimination after being sacked for accidentally exposing himself during a Microsoft Teams video call with external contractors.
The incident took place on 8 May 2023, a bank holiday marking the coronation of King Charles III. The employee, who joined FSCS in 2020 as a change specialist and later became a digital production manager, stood up during the video call to adjust a cable. He was not wearing anything from the waist down, and his genitals were visible on screen.
Following a complaint from colleagues, the FSCS launched an internal investigation. During the process, the employee claimed he had not realised the camera was on and pointed downwards. He said, “That was a bank holiday and l did not realise when l folded the laptop camera was on and pointing to the floor and then immediately shut down the camera so that don’t know what was seen in the floor.”
He added, “It is just an accident and apologies,” and admitted that he did not always “wear full dress” while working from home, and further argued that the event took place on a public holiday and therefore the employer’s dress code should not apply. Finally, he claimed that requiring him to work during a public holiday amounted to racial discrimination.
 |
Get our essential weekday HR news and updates.
|
Dismissal found “reasonable”
The tribunal rejected both his claims. FSCS executive Sabah Carter, who led the internal investigation, found that the employee’s actions had harmed the organisation’s reputation. She noted that he did not show genuine remorse and instead attempted to blame the external contractors present on the video call.
Ms Carter also pointed to inconsistencies in the employee’s explanation. Initially he admitted his genitals were exposed but later changed his account, claiming he had been wearing “nude-coloured underwear”. The tribunal found that this inconsistency undermined his credibility.
The panel concluded that the employee had not been scheduled to work on the bank holiday but had voluntarily chosen to do so. It concluded that “even if he were required to work inappropriately, that is no reason for appearing in a state of undress.”
Although the tribunal acknowledged that the employee did apologise early in the process, it found that he later “sought to obscure or deflect blame” and had not “consistently shown remorse”. The panel ruled that FSCS acted within reason in dismissing him.
Promotion complaint also rejected by tribunal
In addition to contesting his dismissal, the employee also claimed he had been unfairly denied a promotion due to racial discrimination. However, the tribunal dismissed this allegation as well.
The panel found that his application lacked detail and failed to demonstrate relevant experience for the senior position, which carried a salary roughly double his own £58,580 yearly income. The tribunal stated, “The position applied for was approximately twice the claimant’s salary and FSCS was seeking relevant experience, particularly in heading departments.”
The employee holds dual British and Australian citizenship and identifies as Indian, having been born in India. He alleged that the disciplinary process amounted to “racial discrimination, mental harassment, unfair dismissal” but the tribunal found no evidence to support this claim.
Alessandra Pacelli is a journalist and author contributing to HRreview, where she covers topics including labour market trends, employment costs, and workplace issues.
- Alessandra Pacelli
- Alessandra Pacelli
- Alessandra Pacelli
- Alessandra Pacelli
