An investment banker who sued Barclays for sex discrimination after her boss continued to call women “birds” has won £50,000.

Anca Lacatus was awarded the compensation after an employment tribunal ruled it was “patently sexist” to use the term to describe women.

Ms Lacatus had to repeatedly tell James Kinghorn not to use the word because it made her uncomfortable, it was heard.

Mr Kinghorn defended his use of the word, saying it was slight, but the court ruled it was sexist and even using it jokingly was “stupid”.

Ms Lacatus sought damages of more than £1.3 million against Barclays after winning claims alleging sex discrimination and a form of disability discrimination.

Investment banker Anca Lacatus awarded compensation after employment tribunal rules it was ‘patently sexist’ to use the term to describe women

However, she was awarded £49,729 at a compensation hearing at East London employment tribunal.

The majority of the payment – ​​£48,202 – was awarded to cover her disability discrimination claim. Barclays did not respond to her request to adjust her working hours because she suffered from endometriosis and anxiety.

She won £1,526 in the ‘birds’ sex discrimination claim.

The Romanian worked as a £46,000-a-year analyst for Barclays in what was her first job in investment banking after completing a master’s degree in investments and finance at Queen Mary University of London.

Ms Lacatus said her boss, Mr Kinghorn, called a female employee a “bird” in February 2018.

She said she immediately criticized him for using the phrase, but then he continued to say it in an attempt to make her uncomfortable.

And Mr. Kinghorn told her she shouldn’t report him to HR for referring to women in such an offensive way, she said.

The court heard Mr Kinghorn assumed Ms Lacatus took his use of the word “bird” as a lighthearted joke and that he joked that he had reported the behavior to human resources.

But in court he admitted his language was inappropriate and the judge called it blatantly sexist.

Judge John Crosfill said: “The use of the expression ‘bird’ was a misplaced use of irony which inadvertently caused offense.

“We accept that when this was pointed out to (Mr Kinghorn) he finally got the message and stopped trying to be funny.

“We consider it very foolish to assume that anyone else would find this language amusing.

“We believe it probably took some time for Ms. Lacatus to be direct enough for the message to hit home.

“The language is clearly sexist (whether it is intended irony or not).”

Ms Lacatus said James Kinghorn continued to use the term even after telling her to stop because he was trying to make her uncomfortable, the East London court heard (pictured).

Judge Crosfill said Mr Kinghorn had not deliberately offended Ms Lacatus, but used the word more often than he was prepared to admit.

The court also found that Ms Lacatus would have been reluctant at the time to speak out against her boss’s sexist comments because she feared the damage it could cause to her career.

She did not want to be seen as a “troublemaker,” the judge said.

At the latest compensation hearing, Judge Johnfill said it was entirely appropriate to award him £1,000 plus interest for the “birds” comment.

He said: “We disparage the use of the phrase ‘birds’ as a reference to women in the professional environment, but we would not consider the conduct that we considered to be unlawful to be particularly serious or serious.

“It was very much at the lower end of what could reasonably be considered harm.” Given the context, we expect that the use of the phrase “birds” will cause some discomfort and irritation.

“Any action beyond that would, in our view, be a surprising response.” We are convinced that (Ms. Lacatus) was offended by James Kinghorn’s inappropriate irony.

“We discovered that it was only after she made her feelings clear on several occasions that he stopped using the phrase ‘birds.’

“Taking into account the totality of the evidence, we find that (Ms. Lacatus) was slightly offended by the use of the phrase “birds” and became irritated when it was repeated.

“This is consistent with the reaction we would have anticipated. We keep in mind that (Ms. Lacatus) had much more important and serious concerns at that time.

Ms Lacatus also won her claim that Barclays failed to adjust her working hours because she suffered from endometriosis and anxiety.

Ms. Lacatus often had to work late after 7 p.m. and worked on average between 40 and 48 hours per week.

She “became progressively more exhausted” as her illness worsened and was placed at a “substantial disadvantage compared to other non-disabled people.”

The judge said: “Barclays’ failure to adjust Ms Lacatus’s hours is in our view a serious and extremely reckless act of discrimination.”

Ms Lacatus was made redundant in January 2019 and was subsequently terminated by the bank.