Redundant IT worker who was not given exit card was not harassed or victimized, court rules

A business liaison leader (BLL) who was not given a get-out card when he was made redundant was not harassed or victimized, a court has ruled.

THE Bury St Edmunds Court I heard that Shahid Aziz, a colleague of the applicant, decided that since only two or three people had signed the card, it would be “more insulting” to give it to her than to give her no card at all.

The claimant, Karen Conaghan, was made redundant by IAG, the parent company of British Airways, following a restructuring. She also filed an unfair dismissal claim after being rejected for an alternative role at the company; however, the court heard that Conaghan was not offered the role because he 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, court rules, as investment firm worker paid £50k after ‘derogatory’ comments

Final guidance: duty to prevent sexual harassment at work

Employment judge Palmer described Conaghan as having a “constant view that normal interactions are something more sinister” and exhibiting a “conspiracy theory mentality”, ruling that all of her 40 claims for sex-related harassment, victimization and dismissal without just cause failed.

Bottom

Conaghan began working for IAG in August 2019 as a BLL, resolving IT issues across the company. In September 2021, it was proposed that BLL roles be removed as part of a wider restructuring exercise across technology teams. As a result, BLLs were given the option to apply for a new role or opt for redundancy.

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

The court concluded that it was standard for BLLs to live within a one to two hour journey of the company’s headquarters in Heathrow, west London, in the event of serious incidents or cyber threats affecting IT systems.

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

It was also considered her responsibility to inform her employer of her change of address, and Neta informing her immediate superior was considered standard procedure.

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

Conaghan was fired on December 31, 2021. She alleged that she was harassed by the defendant when she did not receive an exit card or “acknowledgment of her contribution or existence within the company” before leaving.

Aziz explained to the court that only two or three people had signed the applicant’s exit card and he believed it would be more insulting to present it to her than to give her no card at all.

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

Aziz highlighted that two other male colleagues were leaving because of the restructuring and also only received any cards or gifts later, citing the team’s heavy workload before Christmas.

Conaghan came forward with new allegations of harassment and victimization related to restructuring-related incidents. Among them was the accusation that Aziz had extended a call with her and Geoffrey Collins, another BLL, purely as a delaying tactic to prevent her from hanging up and returning home on March 8, 2021.

Aziz told the court that transfer calls varied in length and could last between 10 and 30 minutes. Therefore, they found that “if the call was a little longer than normal, that would simply be the result of necessity and the fact that such calls normally vary and depend, of course, on the amount of information that needed to be transmitted”.

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

The court said it was “at a loss as to how the claimant could conclude that this text message amounted to an act of harassment”, describing Aziz’s action as “entirely appropriate and compassionate”. They added: “In many respects this is indicative of the complainant’s misinterpretation of events.”

On June 29, 2021, when Conaghan and Collins were on a work-from-home shift, a company-wide IT issue was reported. The applicant had taken a break, which she did not inform Collins about, and he was concerned that by 10.38pm no “proactive update” had been sent, when it should have been at 10pm.

Collins contacted the complainant and attempted to divide the tasks between them to catch up on the matter. Ultimately, he made calls while the complainant completed the email update. However, Collins believed that Conaghan had simply copied and pasted a previous update.

Although Collins accused Conaghan of lying when he said he updated the email during an “angry exchange,” the court concluded there was no evidence that his reaction was in any way related to the complainant’s gender.

The applicant also alleged that Neta copied the use of the word ‘whizz’, but corrected the spelling to ‘whizz’, in Vickram Johal’s farewell card on 5 July 2021. The court accepted that ‘whizz kid’ was a “phrase” frequently applied” for Johal, and it was a coincidence that they both used it.

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

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

Collins was simply suggesting a normal division of labor, which was “not an attempt to belittle,” the court said. They added: “There is no ulterior motive behind this. This is quite indicative that the complainant’s constant view that normal interactions are something more sinister and the fact that she exhibited a ‘conspiracy theory mentality’ towards incidents and acts that were simple and normal interactions at the place of work.”

On July 5, Collins also allegedly harassed and victimized Conaghan, saying “you’re annoying Karen” and “Karen, are you kidding? I do everything” to her during a conversation on Teams. The court said this was “unprofessional”, but a reaction to the claimant’s suggestion that she had done all the hard work and that “it was his turn to do some”, rather than being in any way related to the sex of the applicant.

Judge’s comments

Employment judge Palmer said many of the acts on which Conaghan’s claims were based “did not happen” and that where they did occur there was no evidence they were related to her sex.

The judge added: “There was certainly some animosity between Mr Collins and the complainant during the time they worked shifts together. Mr Collins’ behavior could sometimes, as we have seen, be considered less than perfect.

“However, there was no evidence that would allow us to conclude that Mr. Collins’ actions in his interaction with the complainant about whom the complainant made a complaint were in any way related to the complainant’s sex.”

Palmer also pointed out the pair’s “difficult working relationship” because of their different “working styles”, leading Collins to adopt an “abrasive approach” at times.

With regard to the allegations of victimization, the court 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 implemented a “very structured process” for at-risk employees to apply for suitable alternative positions, and that this process was “followed precisely.”

“(Conaghan) was not offered the job because she was unable to travel to London. It was a job that required a successful candidate to do it”, stated the judge, concluding that the allegation of unfair dismissal was successful.

Lawyers’ comments

Stephen Woodhouse, senior associate at Stephensons Solicitors, said People Management that the court demonstrated the need for employers to be able to distinguish between “normal workplace interactions and disputes and acts likely to be harassing on the basis of sex”.

“The first is normally a matter for an internal grievance process, whilst the second is capable of taking it to an employment tribunal,” he explained.

Yvonne Gallagher, employment lawyer at Harbottle & Lewis, said People Management: “The judge went to great lengths to emphasize that where there is conflicting evidence, the court has to decide which it prefers – but arriving at a preference does not mean concluding that the applicant was lying, simply that the other account is considered more credible.”

She added that the fact that the claimant was made redundant in December 2021 and the case was heard in the summer of 2024 was “perhaps the most worrying aspect of this case”, along with “the extent to which an employer can now face a set very complex and detailed set of claims based on what was, in essence, a straightforward claim for unfair dismissal arising from redundancy following a very thorough process.”

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

“Complaints that take more than two years to resolve may not be in the best interest of either party, and an increasing tendency to include numerous examples to support allegations of discrimination prolongs hearing times and leads to a slowdown in the progress of all claims. complaints into an employment tribunal system that is now overburdened and under-resourced.”

Other resources on labor legislation are available on the website CIPD dedicated topic page