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.
Obvious he was calling anyone that to their face. Which isn’t the only problematic way to use it. Beyond that we don’t know. Seems weird to pass judgment one way or the other. Entirely possible there were other factors at play too.