A woman who took her employer to an employment tribunal over not receiving a leaving card has lost her case after it emerged that the card had been withheld due to a lack of signatures.
Karen Conaghan, who previously worked for IAG, the parent company of British Airways, claimed that the company’s failure to present her with a leaving card amounted to a breach of equality laws.
However, the tribunal was told that although a card had been purchased, it was never given to her because only three people had signed it. According to the Times, a former colleague testified that managers thought it would be more hurtful to give her the sparsely signed card than to withhold it entirely.
Employment Judge Kevin Palmer stated: “He believed it would have been more insulting to give her the card than not to give her a card at all.” The tribunal also heard that two male colleagues, who were made redundant at the same time during a company restructuring, did not receive leaving cards either.
40 complaints
Conaghan, a former business liaison lead who joined the company in 2019, lodged 40 complaints against IAG, accusing the company of sexual harassment, victimisation, and unfair dismissal. However, the tribunal dismissed all claims, with Judge Palmer concluding that Conaghan had developed a “conspiracy-theory mentality” and misinterpreted normal workplace interactions as harassment.
One of Conaghan’s complaints involved a colleague who had corrected her spelling of the word “whiz” in a card, changing it to “whizz.” Another incident she cited involved a coworker asking, “Are you taking the piss, Karen?” after she claimed to have done most of the work on a project and said it was his turn to contribute.
The tribunal was told that Conaghan moved to Richmond, North Yorkshire, in September 2021, despite an expectation that all employees live within two hours of IAG’s Heathrow office. She was made redundant later that year during the company’s restructuring process, which affected many employees.
While additional signatures were later collected for the leaving card after Conaghan’s departure, a former colleague testified that it was considered “inappropriate” to send the card, as Conaghan had filed a grievance against him and another coworker.
Judge Palmer ruled that many of the incidents raised by Conaghan “either did not happen or, if they did happen, they were innocuous interactions in the normal course of employment.” He added that none of the allegations suggested any discrimination based on her sex and that some of Conaghan’s claims reflected her view of “normal interactions being something more sinister.”
The ruling follows a separate case earlier this year in which an employment tribunal judge found that sending an employee an unwanted birthday card could potentially be considered harassment.
Amelia Brand is the Editor for HRreview, and host of the HR in Review podcast series. With a Master’s degree in Legal and Political Theory, her particular interests within HR include employment law, DE&I, and wellbeing within the workplace. Prior to working with HRreview, Amelia was Sub-Editor of a magazine, and Editor of the Environmental Justice Project at University College London, writing and overseeing articles into UCL’s weekly newsletter. Her previous academic work has focused on philosophy, politics and law, with a special focus on how artificial intelligence will feature in the future.
