Woman business chief forced out over ‘racism and sexism’ amid claim of vicious putsch
ONE of Britain’s most senior business leaders has stepped down to contest a host of allegations including claims she made racist and sexist comments about staff.
Barbara Judge, 71, the first female chairman of the Institute of Directors, is facing 41 accusations from 14 employees. These include claims that she said she could not sack a black worker because ‘they would behave aggressively’, told a colleague not to ‘dress like a tart’ and described a staff member having another baby as ‘career suicide’.
Lady Judge also allegedly told the IoD’s director-general that ‘the problem is, we have one black and we have one pregnant woman, and that is the worst combination we could possibly have’. She was also accused of refusing to put a prospective employee up for interview when she discovered he was a Sikh – an allegation which was not upheld.
The report, leaked on International Women’s Day, claimed that Lady Judge bullied her assistant and allegedly made her stand on a staircase for an hour ‘while a painter considered the best light in which to paint a portrait of Lady Judge’.
The businesswoman, who was awarded a CBE in 2010, is also said to have declared the women speaking about sexual harassment and abuse as part of the MeToo movement were ‘exaggerating’.
An inquiry into her conduct was commissioned late last year by Dame Joan Stringer, the IoD’s senior independent council member, after 14 anonymous whistleblowers made 41 allegations about her.
The investigation is embarrassing for the 115-year-old institute because it frequently criticises major companies for perceived failings by boards to manage themselves effectively.
Yesterday, senior members of the IoD, which represents just over 30,000 senior managers in UK firms, held a crisis meeting to discuss the issue. An insider described the mood in the room as ‘sombre and shell-shocked’.
Lady Judge’s supporters claim that Dame Joan launched the probe because she was ‘desperate to overthrow the chairman and take her place’. A source told the Daily Mail: ‘Joan has clearly got it in for Barbara – she wants Barbara’s job. There’s a certain jealousy people have for women like Barbara, who has worked
‘Fails to comply with natural justice’
hard, looks elegant and is extremely successful.’ Another source claimed Lady Judge had irritated colleagues by trying to make the organisation fit for the future by seeking to recruit more female company directors.
They said: ‘She said all the paintings of dead male generals on the walls didn’t communicate a 21st century message and wanted them to come down, which didn’t go down well.’
It later emerged the group of whistleblowers included the new director general Stephen Martin. In a memo, deputy chairman Sir Kenneth Olisa accused Mr Martin of secretly recording a meeting with Lady Judge in an effort to undermine her.
Sir Kenneth, who is also the first black lord lieutenant of London, said: ‘I’ve never seen a molecule of racism or sexism in Barbara’s behaviour over the years I’ve known her.’
In an email to the IoD board and council, Sir Kenneth said that Dame Joan’s approach ‘fails to comply with the principles of natural justice’.
In a separate email, he accused Caroline Prosser, a lawyer at Hill Dickinson who produced the report, of making judgments which were ‘merely personal opinions’.
Last night Miss Prosser said: ‘It was a full and fair investigation. I interviewed Lady Judge for over ten hours with her lawyer present.
‘I gave her a copy of the minutes of the meeting to ensure her I had accurately recorded her evidence.’
But Lady Judge described the processes as ‘flawed’ and said she had ‘decided to step aside temporarily’ as chairman to contest the allegations.
‘This case concerns confidential allegations of a nature that I take very seriously,’ she said. ‘I have cooperated in full with the IoD’s investigation in order to support its efforts to resolve this matter fairly.
‘It is incredibly disappointing that a draft confidential legal report has been leaked before a decision has even been made to proceed and before I have been given an opportunity to respond to its findings, thereby denying me any right to a fair hearing.’