A British woman, Karen Conaghan, recently lost an employment tribunal case against her former employer, International Airlines Group (IAG), after suing them for not providing her with a farewell card. Conaghan, who worked at IAG, the parent company of British Airways, claimed that the lack of a leaving card was a form of discrimination and victimization under equality law. However, the tribunal dismissed all of her complaints, ruling that her claims lacked merit.
The Farewell Card Dispute
The case stemmed from Conaghan’s departure from IAG in 2021, when she was made redundant as part of a company restructuring. According to her, the absence of a farewell card symbolized a “failure to acknowledge her existence” within the organization. Conaghan argued that this was not just a personal slight, but a breach of equality law.
However, during the tribunal, it was revealed that a farewell card had indeed been purchased for Conaghan. The issue arose because only three people had signed the card, prompting one of her former colleagues to decide against presenting it to her. The colleague believed that giving her a card with so few signatures would have been more insulting than not giving her one at all.
Tribunal Findings
The tribunal, led by Judge Kevin Palmer, dismissed all of Conaghan’s claims, which included 40 complaints covering accusations of sexual harassment, victimization, and unfair dismissal. The judge found no evidence that any of the actions cited in her complaints were related to her gender or amounted to workplace discrimination.
One notable allegation involved a colleague who had supposedly copied Conaghan’s wording in a card for another employee, but altered the spelling from "whiz" to "whizz." Conaghan viewed this as harassment. Another complaint revolved around a co-worker asking her, “Are you taking the piss, Karen?” after she claimed credit for completing difficult work. The tribunal dismissed these as normal workplace interactions rather than instances of victimization or harassment.
Judge Palmer concluded that many of the incidents highlighted by Conaghan either did not occur or were innocuous in nature. He also pointed out that Conaghan had developed a “conspiracy-theory mentality,” which led her to view routine workplace exchanges as something more sinister. The tribunal found no basis for her claims, ruling that her interpretation of these events was unfounded.
Relocation and Redundancy
Conaghan’s relocation to Richmond, North Yorkshire, in September 2021 also played a role in the tribunal’s decision. IAG had a policy requiring employees to live within a two-hour commute of the office in Heathrow. Despite this policy, Conaghan moved far beyond the permitted distance. This factor was brought up during the hearing, with colleagues emphasizing that her redundancy was part of a wider restructuring initiative that affected many employees at the time, rather than an isolated act targeting her.
Lack of Evidence and Dismissal of Claims
Throughout the tribunal, it became clear that Conaghan’s claims were based on her perception of events rather than concrete evidence. Judge Palmer noted that many of the incidents she described, if they occurred at all, were standard workplace interactions and not indicative of harassment or victimization.
The tribunal also found no grounds to support Conaghan’s claim that the failure to give her a farewell card amounted to a breach of equality law. The decision not to give her the card was based solely on the low number of signatures, and not motivated by any discriminatory intent.
In the end, the tribunal dismissed all of Conaghan’s claims, affirming that her complaints were unfounded and her view of the workplace events was skewed by her own interpretations. The case serves as a reminder that legal claims based on personal slights or misunderstandings in the workplace need to be backed by strong evidence of discriminatory practices.
-
Explore Further
- The Independent
- Hindustan Times
- Hindustan Times
