A desire to go clubbing is not discriminatory

Does a disagreement over a venue for a work Christmas party amount to discriminatory conduct? No, held the tribunal in the recent case of Mrs C Palladino v Reed in Partnership Ltd.

In this case, the Claimant (Mrs C Palladino) worked for the Respondent (Reed in Partnership Ltd) as an HR advisor. At the time in question, the Claimant was aged 45 and was the second eldest of the Respondents with the remainder being in their 20s.

In 2021, when organising a work Christmas party, the Claimant suggested the venue, Willow Farm Village, which is mainly for children and families, but could also be available during the evenings for events such as a Christmas party. Her colleagues stated that they would prefer a venue which was not catered for families but was “more entertaining, and possibility in London.” The Claimant stated that her colleagues have been negative about her suggestion. The Claimant continuously used the word ‘clubbing’ to describe their wishes for the Christmas party.

There were also a number of text messages and emails disclosed which all related to answering the question of where the Christmas party should be held. Each colleague was asked to put forward a venue to be selected and expressed preferences and choices on their preferred venue. A venue was selected, and the Claimant did not attend the dinner.

The Claimant subsequently brought claims of direct discrimination, harassment, victimisation and constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal stated that ‘much of the correspondence was the normal good-humoured correspondence on this topic, which is to be expected.’

At a preliminary hearing, the tribunal stated that the dispute was ‘a minor banal everyday issue in the workplace.’ The tribunal found that the Claimant’s colleagues favoured going into London and the Claimant did not, to which the tribunal stated, ‘I do not accept that the simple act of being disagreed with constitutes a detriment’.

The tribunal dismissed her claims for direct discrimination, and harassment stating that however her claiming for victimisation and constructive unfair dismissal continue. The reason for this is that there are incidents over the use of a training room and allegations that her colleague deliberately brought in smelly food in retaliation for her complaint of discrimination.

This case illustrates the importance of establishing a genuine detriment as the result of a protected characteristic and not simply being disagreed with. However, in saying this the outcome in relation to the Claimant’s claims for victimisation and constructive unfair dismissal are yet to be determined. 

Have you been discriminated against in the workplace? Please contact Chadwick Lawrence on 0113 225 8811 or by visiting our website.