A workplace dispute between a woman in her late 60s and her younger colleagues has failed to meet the legal threshold for age-related harassment, an employment tribunal has ruled. The decision shows the limits of what legally constitutes harassment in noisy, multigenerational office environments.
The case involved Catherine Ritchie, an administrator who joined an electrical engineering firm aged 66 and later raised complaints about the loud and informal behaviour of younger staff. She said she found it difficult to concentrate amid what she described as “boisterous” conversations, phone use and low productivity.
Ritchie’s request to work from home was denied, and she said the situation left her physically strained, with headaches and a hoarse voice from trying to be heard.
Although the tribunal acknowledged Ritchie’s desire to work professionally and diligently, it found her expectations of others’ conduct to be unreasonable. Her reaction to the informal culture of younger staff did not meet the legal definition of age-related harassment, the panel concluded.
Key issues beyond noise
Legal experts say the case reflects a broader issue than just office chatter. Liz Stevens, a support lawyer in the Employment Team at solicitors Birketts LLP, told HRreview that the dispute partly stemmed from an internal decision to increase Ritchie’s key performance indicator (KPI) targets without discussion.
“The main issue in this case appears to be the decision to increase the claimant’s KPI targets without prior consultation,” Stevens said. “She cited the noisy office environment as one of the reasons that would make it difficult for her to meet the higher target.”
Unable to bring an unfair dismissal claim due to having less than two years of continuous service — a legal requirement under current rules — Ritchie brought claims for age discrimination and harassment, which do not require a minimum period of employment.
Stevens said “[t]he tribunal was satisfied that different attitudes to work and standards of workplace behaviour were not enough to establish an age-related harassment claim on the facts of this case”.
Why this matters for HR and employers
While harassment based on protected characteristics such as age is prohibited under the Equality Act 2010, the law sets a relatively high bar. To qualify as unlawful harassment, the behaviour in question must be unwanted, relate directly to a protected characteristic, and create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the complainant.
In this case, the tribunal found that the conduct of younger staff — chatting, socialising and phone use — was not directed at the claimant because of her age, nor was it objectively unreasonable.
The ruling provides clarity for HR professionals managing multigenerational teams where working styles and expectations differ. Frustration with colleagues’ behaviour does not, on its own, amount to discrimination or harassment unless it can be clearly linked to a protected characteristic and meets the severity threshold.
Upcoming changes to unfair dismissal rights
Stevens noted that the legal landscape is about to change. Under the UK government’s forthcoming Employment Rights Bill, expected to come into effect in 2027, employees will be granted the right to claim unfair dismissal from day one of employment, rather than having to complete two years of service.
“While this may lead to an increase in the overall volume of claims, it might mean that the claims are more straightforward to deal with — hopefully reducing the length of time it takes for cases to be heard,” she said.
The change could mean that future employees in similar situations will have more direct legal recourse, potentially avoiding the need to rely on discrimination-based claims to challenge workplace treatment.
Balancing culture and professionalism
Ritchie, who was the oldest employee at the company, felt her requests for quieter working conditions were not respected. She said she was told by a manager to concentrate on reaching her targets rather than commenting on the conduct of others. The tribunal concluded that while she took her work seriously, expecting everyone else to conform to her standards was not a reasonable position.
The case raises important considerations for employers trying to build inclusive workplace cultures. Younger staff may favour more informal communication styles, while older employees might value structure and focus. Left unmanaged, such differences can lead to internal conflict.
The takeaway for HR executives is not, say experts, to suppress informality but to foster mutual respect. If an employee raises concerns about a distracting environment, the response should include an objective assessment of the working setup and reasonable adjustments where possible, such as access to quiet rooms, hybrid work arrangements or revised seating plans.
While Ritchie’s experience highlights how generational differences can affect workplace cohesion, the tribunal made clear that irritation with younger colleagues’ behaviour — no matter how valid it may feel — does not automatically amount to age-based harassment.
Employers are advised to proactively address differences in working styles and communication norms, especially as age-diverse teams become the norm in UK offices. The ruling offers a reminder that not all cultural clashes in the workplace are legal matters, but they can still have serious effects on morale, productivity and retention if left unresolved.
