Decision of the Complaints Committee –
13129-22 A man v Mail Online
Summary of Complaint
1. A man complained to the Independent
Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy),
Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) and Clause 12
(Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “IBM
software engineer who made 'puzzling' accusations including that his managers
performed 'black magic' on him and that his colleague using the word
'blacklist' was racist loses his discrimination case”, published on 9 November
2022.
2. The article – which appeared online
only – reported on claims brought by the complainant against his former
employer, IBM, before an Employment Tribunal. It reported that the complainant
had sued the organisation for “race, disability and religious discrimination
and victimisation”, with the tribunal ruling that all his “allegations were unfounded”.
A series of bullet-points beneath the headline identified the complainant by
name, age, and profession. In doing so, it reported that the “software
engineer” had lost his claim. The sub-headline bullet-points also reported that
the complainant had “blasted a colleague at IBM in Warwick for using [the] word
‘blacklist’”; “alleged 30 acts of discrimination with incidents of ‘black
magic’ and ‘voodoo’”; and the tribunal “found his view was ‘every individual he
interacted with was racist’”.
3. The text of the article reported
that the complainant – who was “based at IMB’s UK office in Warwick – made
“widespread and unsubstantiated allegations of racism against his colleagues”,
claiming that he was the victim “of more than 30 acts of discrimination”. The
article went on to detail the various claims made by the complainant at the
tribunal, including that a “colleague’s use of the word 'blacklist' was racist”
and he was “being denied promotions and opportunities to further his career due
to his race”. The text of the article also reported that the complainant –
which identified him as a Muslim – “argued unsuccessfully that one colleague
called him a 'f****** Indian' twice and also inaccurately stated he had to work
on Eid when he was in fact off”. It also
reported that the complainant had “claimed [at tribunal] ‘IBM was carrying out
a sort of voodoo” against him and “alleged that his manager was ‘performing
some black magic on him’ to deliberately target him”. The article reported that
the judge found no evidence that “race played any part in promotion decisions”
and was unable to find anything sinister in the way the words “blacklisting” or
“black” had been used, with the judge saying that “although this grievance was
confused and adopted a scattergun approach […] the claimant did have a genuine
belief that the reason he was being treated differently in his perception, was
because he was Asian.”
4. The article was accompanied by a
photograph of the complainant as well as an image showing the exterior of IBM’s
UK office. The article detailed the complainant’s employment history at IMB,
including his salary (“£55,000”), his job title and the department in which he
worked (“cyber consultant”, and “part of a team codenamed X Force Red), and his
start date (“October 2015”).
5. The complainant disputed that the
tribunal judgment – and by extension the article – gave a fair and true account
of the matter. He said that his decision to appeal the judge’s ruling rendered
the article inaccurate and misleading. He denied that his concerns at the
tribunal related to the use of the term “blacklist”; instead, they related in
part to the emphasis placed on the word “black” by colleagues during a call. He
added that the term “blacklist” was never mentioned in his claim and denied
that he claimed it was a racist term.
6. The complainant also denied that he
made allegations that his managers performed “black magic” and “voodoo” on him.
He also denied that he considered every individual he interacted with at the
organisation racist; his claims were against a specific number of individuals
at the organisation.
7. The complainant also said that he
was a “cyber security consultant”, rather than a “software engineer” as
reported. He also denied being “based at” the organisation’s offices in
“Warwick”, as he worked remotely.
8. The complainant said that the
article represented an unjustified intrusion into his private life, in breach
of Clause 2. He said that the article, including the photograph and his
personal details – such as his name, age, and salary – had been published
without his consent. He confirmed that the photograph in the article had been
shared on an internal platform at IBM.
9. Further, the complainant said that
the article was discriminatory, in breach of Clause 12, to refer to him as
“Asian” and “Muslim”. He said that the publication of the article caused him
distress, in breach of Clause 4.
10. The publication did not accept a
breach of the Editors’ Code. It made clear that newspapers were entitled to
report on employment tribunals. While the complainant might dispute the
accuracy of the tribunal’s findings, it said that the article was a fair and
accurate summary of the publicly available judgment, which it provided to IPSO.
It said that the tribunal clearly set out how the complainant had alleged that
the word “blacklist” was racist and that colleagues had performed “black magic”
and “voodoo” on him. Further, it noted that the judgment found that an
“allegation” of racial discrimination “had been constructed after the event by
the [complainant] as a way to bolster his claim and to support his views that
every individual he interacted with was racist” at the organisation. It added
that the judgment also stated that the complainant had been based at the
organisation’s “Warwick” office.
11. Further, the publication did not
accept that its description of the complainant as a “software engineer” was
significantly misleading where the tribunal described him as a “Security
Consultant within the Cloud and Cognitive Software business unit” and where the
article focused on the tribunal’s consideration of his allegations of racial
discrimination.
12. Notwithstanding this, in an effort
to resolve the complaint, it offered to amend the online article in its
description of the complainant’s job title. Further, the publication offered to
update the article to reflect the outcome of complainant’s appeal against the
judgment, if necessary.
13. With regard to Clause 2, the
publication did not accept that the complainant had a reasonable expectation of
privacy over the information included within the article, particularly in
circumstances when all these details – including his name, age, salary, and
employment history – were taken from the publicly available tribunal judgement.
It also noted the inherent public interest in reporting on legal proceedings.
14. In addition, the publication did
not accept that the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in
relation to the photograph published: it showed only the complainant’s likeness
and had been sourced from his employer’s website. Though it said that this
image had since been removed from the IBM forum, it maintained that it was
publicly available at the time of the article’s publication. It also noted that
the complainant had willingly posted similar images of himself on social media
on a number of occasions.
15. In relation to Clause 12, the
publication said that the complainant’s ethnicity and religion were raised in
the tribunal – which was convened to conder his claims of direct and indirect
race discrimination – and was, therefore, genuinely relevant to the article.
16. Finally, the publication said that
the terms of Clause 4 were not engaged: it did not restrict the reporting of
legal proceedings.
Relevant Clause Provisions
Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care not to
publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including
headlines not supported by the text.
ii) A significant inaccuracy,
misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due
prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving
IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.
iii) A fair opportunity to reply to
significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.
iv) The Press, while free to
editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture
and fact.
Clause 2 (Privacy)*
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for
their private and family life, home, physical and mental health, and correspondence,
including digital communications.
ii) Editors will be expected to justify
intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. In considering
an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the
complainant's own public disclosures of information and the extent to which the
material complained about is already in the public domain or will become so.
iii) It is unacceptable to photograph
individuals, without their consent, in public or private places where there is
a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or
shock)
In cases involving personal grief or
shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and
publication handled sensitively. These provisions should not restrict the right
to report legal proceedings.
Clause 12 (Discrimination)
i) The press must avoid prejudicial or
pejorative reference to an individual's, race, colour, religion, sex, gender
identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or
disability.
ii) Details of an individual's race,
colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, physical or mental
illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.
Findings of the Committee
17. The Committee made clear that the
publication was responsible for accurately reporting the findings of the
tribunal; it was not responsible for the findings made by the tribunal. In this
instance, the article accurately reported the tribunal’s findings regarding the
complainant’s claims of “direct race and religious discrimination” and “race
related harassment and victimisation”: the complainant alleged that a
colleague’s use of the term “black-listing” at the time of George Floyd’s
murder in the US was “racist”; alleged a colleague was performing “black magic”
and a “sort of voodoo” on him; and found
that a specific “allegation” of discrimination had been “constructed” by
the complainant “after the event [to] bolster his claim and to support his
views that every individual he interacted with was racist”. The judgement also
stated that the complainant’s team was “based” in the organisation’s “Warwick”
office. In these circumstances, the Committee did not consider that the
article’s coverage of the complainant’s claims or the findings of the tribunal
were inaccurate or misleading – even in circumstances where the complainant
sought an appeal of the judgment. As
such, there was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.
18. Further, the Committee found that
the article was not significantly inaccurate or misleading to describe the
complainant’s job title as “software engineer”, in the context of the article
as a whole, which focused on his discrimination claims, and where the Tribunal
stated his title as a “Security Consultant within the Cloud and Cognitive
Software business unit”. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
19. The Committee next considered the
concerns raised under Clause 2. This Clause is designed to ensure that an
individual’s private life is respected. In this case, the information included
within the article – details regarding the complainant’s claims against his
employer, his name, his salary and employment history – related to a
professional context, were referenced during his Employment Tribunal, and had
been placed in the public domain. Nor did the Committee consider that the
complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to his age. It
also noted that the photograph showed only the complainant’s likeness; it did
not reveal any private information about him or show him engaged in any private
activity. In addition, the image already been shared on an internal platform at
a large, multi-national organisation. For these reasons, the Committee did not
consider that the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect
of the information contained within the article and its publication did not
represent an intrusion into his private life. There was no breach of Clause 2.
20. Clause 12 bars irrelevant and
pejorative references to certain, protected characteristics of an individual.
In this case, the article covered the complainant’s employment tribunal which
ruled on his claims of direct and indirect race discrimination. In this
context, reference to the complainant’s race and religion were considered
genuinely relevant and not pejorative or prejudicial. There was no breach of
Clause 12.
21. The Committee next considered the
complainant’s concerns under Clause 4. The Committee noted that the article was
a report of employment tribunal proceedings. Clause 4 makes clear that it does
not restrict the right for publications to report on legal proceedings. The
Committee understood that the publication of the article was upsetting for the
complainant, but it was an accurate report of his employment tribunal and there
was no breach of Clause 4.
Conclusion(s)
22. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial action required
23. N/A
Date complaint received: 15/11/2023
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 04/04/2022