Employee sues her old company for sexual harassment because she wasn’t given a farewell card – even though the boss decided not to hand it over because only three people signed it

A real-life “Karen” tried to sue her former employers for sexual harassment, including for not giving her a farewell card when she lost her job.

As one of forty complaints, Karen Conaghan claimed that failure to acknowledge her ‘existence within the company’ was a breach of equality laws.

An employment tribunal heard that a card had indeed been purchased, but because it had only been signed by three people when the worker left, her colleague found it ‘insulting’ to give it to her.

Ms Conaghan made a number of claims about her treatment and took the company to court alleging sexual harassment, victimization and unfair dismissal.

However, they were all dismissed under the panel’s ruling that Ms Conaghan had adopted a ‘conspiracy theory mentality’ in which she mistook ‘normal workplace interactions’ for something ‘sinister’.

A real-life ‘Karen’ tried to sue her former employers for sexual harassment for not giving her a farewell card when she lost her job. As one of forty complaints, Karen Conaghan claimed failure to acknowledge her ‘existence within the company’ was a breach of equality laws

An employment tribunal heard that a card had indeed been purchased, but because it had only been signed by three people when the worker left, her colleague found it ‘insulting’ to give it to her

The tribunal heard that Ms Conaghan started working as a business liaison lead for aviation group IAG GBS in August 2019. In December 2021, she was laid off due to a company-wide restructuring

In recent years, a “Karen” has become a widespread meme on the Internet and has come to mean a middle-aged woman with a “sense of entitlement” and a “willingness and desire to complain.”

The tribunal heard that Ms Conaghan started working as a business liaison lead for aviation group IAG GBS in August 2019.

In December 2021, she was laid off due to a company-wide restructuring.

In light of her dismissal, she has submitted various claims to the tribunal.

Ms Conaghan, representing herself, complained that a colleague had ‘copied’ her use of the word ‘whiz’ onto a card for a colleague, but corrected her spelling by writing ‘whiz’ instead.

The employee told the panel that on another occasion another colleague ended a Teams call by saying: ‘Are you taking the piss Karen?’.

While the tribunal accepted the ‘unprofessional’ language was used, they said it was a ‘response’ to Ms Conaghan, who suggested she had ‘done all the hard work’ and it was his ‘turn to do something’ .

Employment judge Kevin Palmer said this was evidence of the ‘uneasy relationship’ between the colleagues.

Ms Conaghan also complained that she had not been added to a working group chat and that this was an example of sexual harassment.

The tribunal said this was “not done deliberately” to “undermine” her and that there was nothing “malicious” about the action.

It was also learned that Ms Conaghan moved permanently to Richmond, Yorkshire, in September 2021 – despite all employees being expected to live within one to two hours of their offices in Heathrow, London.

The tribunal said that at no point did her boss consent to her moving north, despite her claims that he did.

The employee – who complained about her treatment – ​​said colleague Shahid Aziz’s failure to give her a farewell card or acknowledge her “existence within the company” was an example of harassment.

The tribunal ignored this and instead accepted Mr Aziz’s evidence.

He told the court that many employees left the organization at the time due to ‘restructurings’.

EJ Palmer said: ‘We accept his evidence that on December 27 only two or three people had signed (Mrs Conaghan’s) departure card and he believed it would have been more insulting to give her the card than not to give her a card at all .

‘Subsequently, more people signed (Ms Conaghan’s) departure card after she left, but Mr Aziz felt it was inappropriate to send such a card to (her) at a later date because she had a complaint against him and (another colleague) had expressed. ‘

The tribunal said there were also two other men who had not received a card, so in this respect there was nothing ‘inconsistent’ about the behavior and it could not be linked to her gender.

It was learned that Ms Conaghan had applied for another position at the company after her dismissal, but it was a job in London and she had moved by then.

EJ Palmer said there is “nothing to suggest” Ms Conaghan’s allegations were related to her gender.

“Many of the actions relied upon did not occur or, if they did occur, they were harmless interactions in the normal course of employment,” EJ Palmer added.

Referring to one of her allegations, the judge said it was ‘indicative’ of Ms Conaghan’s ‘view that normal interactions are something more sinister’.

“And the fact that she exhibited a ‘conspiracy theory mentality’ regarding incidents and actions that were simple, normal workplace interactions,” EJ Palmer added.