The redundant IT employee who did not receive a departure card was not harassed or victimized, the tribunal rules

A Business Liison Lead (BLL) who was not given a redundancy card when she was dismissed was not harassed or victimized, a tribunal has ruled.

The Bury St Edmunds Tribunal heard that Shahid Aziz, a colleague of the plaintiff, decided that because only two or three people had signed the card, it would be “more insulting” to give it to her than not to give her a card at all.

The claimant, Karen Conaghan, was dismissed by IAG, the parent company of British Airways, as a result of a restructuring. She also filed an unfair dismissal claim after being rejected for an alternative role at the company; However, the tribunal heard that Conaghan was not offered the position because it was based in London, while she had moved to Yorkshire.

Protecting sexual safety in the workplace: why prevention is better than cure

Calling women ‘birds’ is harassment, tribunal rules, as investment firm employee awarded £50,000 after ‘derogatory’ comments

Final guidance: duty to prevent sexual harassment at work

Employment Judge Palmer described Conaghan as having a “consistent view that normal interactions are something sinister” and demonstrating a “conspiracy theory mentality”, ruling that all 40 of her harassment claims relating to sex, victimization and unfair dismissal failed.

Background

Conaghan started working for IAG in August 2019 as a BLL, resolving IT issues across the business. In September 2021, it was proposed to cut the BLL roles as part of a wider restructuring of the technology teams. This gave BLLs the opportunity to apply for a new role or opt for redundancy.

In late September 2021, Conaghan informed her manager, Ravinder Neta, that she had permanently moved to her parents’ home in Yorkshire. Neta had previously allowed her to work there temporarily while the team worked remotely due to Covid restrictions, but said he would not have agreed to a permanent move. Conaghan alleged that Neta had harassed and victimized her by denying that he had agreed to the measure and by insinuating that she was a liar.

The tribunal found it was standard for BLLs to live within one to two hours’ travel time of the company’s headquarters in Heathrow, west London, in the event of major incidents or cyber threats impacting IT systems.

Conaghan also claimed Neta made her reveal her new home address and then informed his line manager. However, the tribunal accepted Neta’s evidence that Conaghan had voluntarily sent him a WhatsApp message with a link to a TV program showing her new property.

It was also considered her responsibility to inform her employer of her change of address, and Neta informing his line manager was considered standard procedure.

After her move and learning of her layoff, Conaghan applied for a role as a people operations consultant. She argued that she had been victimized and unfairly dismissed when she was rejected from the position. However, the tribunal ruled that she was not offered the role because she indicated during the interview that she could only attend the London office twice a month, even though the job description required on-site two days a week. The role involved onboarding new recruits, 99 percent of whom were based in London.

Conaghan was fired on December 31, 2021. She alleged that she was harassed by the defendant when she was not given a farewell card or “recognition of her contribution or existence within the company” before her departure.

Aziz explained to the tribunal that only two or three people had signed the claimant’s departure card, and he believed it would be more insulting to show her it than not to give her a card at all.

After Conaghan left, more people signed the card, but Aziz felt it was inappropriate to send it later because she had made a complaint of sexual harassment against him and Neta.

Aziz pointed out that two other male colleagues left due to the restructuring and only later received a card or gift, citing the team’s heavy workload in the run-up to Christmas.

Conaghan has made further claims of harassment and victimization in relation to incidents surrounding the restructuring. One of these was the accusation that Aziz made a phone call to herself and Geoffrey Collins, another BLL, purely as a delaying tactic to prevent her from signing off and going home on March 8, 2021.

Aziz told the tribunal that handover conversations varied in length and could last between 10 and 30 minutes. Therefore, they found that “if the conversation lasted a little longer than usual, it was only a result of necessity and the fact that such conversations usually varied and obviously depended on the amount of information that had to be conveyed.”

Additionally, Aziz texted Conaghan on her personal number on May 7, 2021 after learning that she had suffered a miscarriage. The message, which she said amounted to sex-related harassment, said: “I was so sorry to hear your sad news. I pray that you all as a family have the strength to get through these challenging days. If there’s anything I can do to help, I’m just a message or phone call away. I hope to see you soon, take care of yourself.”

The tribunal said it was “not aware of how the claimant could have reached the conclusion that this text message amounted to an act of harassment”, describing Aziz’s action as “entirely appropriate and sympathetic”. They added: “In many ways this is indicative of the claimant’s misinterpretation of events.”

On June 29, 2021, while Conaghan and Collins were working shifts from home, a company-wide IT issue was reported. The claimant had taken a break, which she had not informed Collins about, and he was concerned that a “proactive update” had not been sent at 10.38pm when it should have been at 10pm.

Collins contacted the plaintiff and tried to divide the tasks between them to catch up. He finally called while the claimant was completing the email update. However, Collins believed that Conaghan had simply copied and pasted an earlier update.

While Collins ultimately accused Conaghan of lying that she had updated the email during a “testy exchange”, the tribunal found that there was no evidence that his response was in any way related to the claimant’s gender.

The claimant also alleged that Neta had copied her use of the word ‘whiz’, but corrected the spelling to ‘whizz’, on Vickram Johal’s farewell card on July 5, 2021. The tribunal accepted that ‘whizz kid’ was an expression that ‘was often applied’. to Johal, and it was a coincidence that they both took advantage of it.

“There is nothing sinister or significant, on the balance of probabilities, in the fact that he used the same word and spelled it differently,” the tribunal added. “We also accept that at the time he sent the message he was not aware that the claimant had sent a similar message.”

Conaghan further alleged that Collins refused to let her take responsibility for sending an email following an incident on July 5, instead telling her to send the required text message, which was a “lesser task” .

Collins simply suggested a normal division of labor, which was “not an attempt to denigrate”, the tribunal said. They added: “There is no ulterior motive behind it. This is quite indicative of Plaintiff’s consistent view that normal interactions are something more sinister and the fact that she demonstrated a ‘conspiracy theory mentality’ in relation to incidents and actions that were simple, normal workplace interactions.”

On July 5, Collins also allegedly harassed and victimized Conaghan by saying “are you taking the piss Karen” and “Karen, are you kidding me? I’ll do anything” to her during a Teams call. The tribunal said this “ unprofessional” was but a response to the claimant implying that she had done all the hard work and “it was his turn to do something”, rather than it being in any way related to the claimant’s gender.

Judge’s comments

Employment Judge Palmer said many of the acts on which Conaghan’s claims were based “did not take place”, and that where they did take place there was no evidence they were linked to her gender.

The judge added: “There was certainly some animus between Mr Collins and the claimant during the time they worked shifts together. Mr. Collins’s conduct, as we have experienced, can occasionally be seen as less than perfect.

“Nevertheless, there was no evidence whatsoever from which we could conclude that the actions of Mr. Collins in his interaction with the plaintiff about which the plaintiff complained were in any way related to the plaintiff’s gender.”

Palmer also pointed out the pair’s “uneasy working relationship” due to their different “working styles”, which sometimes led Collins to take an “abrasive approach”.

In relation to the victimization claims, the tribunal found no evidence of a link between the alleged acts and Conaghan’s complaint of alleged sexual harassment against Neta and Aziz.

In determining whether Conaghan’s dismissal was unfair, the judge concluded that IAG had implemented a “highly structured process” for employees at risk to apply for suitable alternative roles, and that this process had been “closely followed”.

“(Conaghan) wasn’t offered the job because she couldn’t travel to London. It was a job that required a successful candidate,” said the judge, concluding that the claim of unfair dismissal failed.

Comments from lawyers

Stephen Woodhouse, senior associate at Stephensons Solicitors, said People management that the tribunal has shown that employers must be able to distinguish between “normal interactions and disputes in the workplace and actions that could lead to harassment on the grounds of gender”.

“The former is typically a matter for an internal complaints process, while the latter can lead to an employment tribunal,” he explains.

Yvonne Gallagher, employment lawyer at Harbottle & Lewis, explains People management: “The judge has gone to great lengths to emphasize that if there is conflicting evidence, the tribunal must decide which it prefers – but reaching a preference does not amount to concluding that the claimant was lying, but simply that thinks the other story is more convincing. credible.”

She added that the fact that the claimant was dismissed in December 2021 and the case was heard in the summer of 2024 was “perhaps the most concerning aspect of this case”, along with “the extent to which an employer can now faced with a very complex and detailed series of claims based on what was essentially a simple, unfair dismissal claim arising from dismissal after a very ongoing process.”

“The case raises the question of whether more can be done at the preliminary stage to eliminate or at least limit the issues that should be addressed at a full hearing,” said Gallagher.

“Taking more than two years to resolve claims cannot be in the interests of either party, and a growing trend to include numerous examples in support of allegations of discrimination is lengthening hearing times and slowing down progress of all claims in an employment tribunal system. is now overloaded and under-resourced.”

Further employment law resources are available on the website CIPD’s special subject page