A woman who sued her company for sexual harassment for not giving her a farewell card when she left the company lost the case after being informed of the sad truth in court
In a fair trial, various evidence and background information are revealed in court, but the truth of the case may include facts that the person involved would have preferred not to know. A woman sued her company because she was not given a farewell card when she left the company, but it turned out that the company had prepared a card, but it was not given to her because almost no coworkers had signed it. The court dismissed all of the woman's lawsuits against the company for a total of 40 complaints, including sexual harassment.
Worker who did not get leaving card loses harassment case
Woman who did not get leaving card loses UK employment claim | Employment tribunals | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/12/woman-leaving-card-employment-claim-tribunal
Karen Conaghan, who joined International Airlines Group (IAG), the parent company of British Airways, a major British airline, in 2019, left the company in 2021, but did not receive a farewell card.
After receiving no farewell greetings from her former colleagues, Conaghan sued IAG, claiming that the company's neglect of her violated the Equality Act, which bans discrimination on grounds such as sex in the workplace and in the public service.
However, a former colleague of Mr. Conaghan's who was called to the stand in court testified that 'the manager did indeed purchase the cards, but did not present them to Mr. Conaghan because there were so few signatures.'
It is unclear how many colleagues Conaghan had at his workplace, but IAG is a large company with a total of 71,794 employees as of 2023. However, only three colleagues signed Conaghan's farewell card as he left the company.
The trial also found that two men who worked for another airline under IAG were not given farewell cards when they were laid off, putting Mr Conaghan in a difficult position in his claim of discrimination.
Judge Kevin Palmer, presiding over the case, said: 'The judge considers that giving the card would have been more offensive than not giving it.'
Judge Palmer said signatures on farewell cards increased after Mr Conaghan left but former colleagues said they 'felt it was inappropriate to send cards at a later date because Mr Conaghan had made complaints against them'.
The trial also heard 40 other complaints, including one where Conaghan said: 'I've done all the hard work, now it's your turn' to which a colleague replied: 'Karen, are you joking?'
However, Judge Palmer dismissed all of these claims, finding that 'Mr Conaghan had adopted a conspiracy-based interpretation that misinterpreted ordinary workplace interactions as harassment'.
It was also revealed that Conaghan had moved to Richmond, North Yorkshire, despite the fact that the trial required all employees to live within one to two hours of the London Heathrow office, which, according to Google Maps, is a four-and-a-half hour drive from Richmond, North Yorkshire to Heathrow Airport.
In court, Mr Conaghan claimed his boss had agreed to his move to the north of England but Mr Conaghan's boss said 'no agreement was reached'.
Based on the evidence, the judge ruled that many of Conaghan's complaints either did not occur or, if they did occur, were harmless normal workplace interactions and concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that Conaghan's claims were gender-related.
In this case, the issue was that the card was not sent, but there have been cases where the issue was that the card was sent.
In June 2024, in a lawsuit filed by a tax office employee on sick leave, claiming that his workplace had sent him a birthday card despite him having asked that communication from work be kept to a minimum and that his birthday not be celebrated, the court ruled that 'sending a birthday card when someone does not want it to be received may constitute harassment.'
Related Posts:
in Note, Posted by log1l_ks