The only person explaining the context of the use here is the person who used it (and is potentially trying to save face). We don’t necessarily have the full picture.
Agree we don’t have the full picture. But the memo we have is from the CEO who fired him, not the person who used the word. And contrary to flametitan’s reading, the use is described as “descriptive” during a meeting on “sensitive” words, for which he was told inappropriate after the fact. Then he used the word again with colleagues when discussing his original use.
It’s obvious to me he wasn’t calling anyone that word.