A real-life 'Karen' tried to sue her former employers for sexual harassment for not giving her a get-out card when she lost her job.
As one of 40 complaints, Karen Conaghan alleged that the failure to recognize her “existence within the company” was a breach of equality laws.
An employment tribunal heard that a card had in fact been purchased, but as it was only signed by three people when the worker left, her colleague felt it would be “an insult” to give it to her.
Ms Conaghan made a series of complaints about her treatment and took the company to court alleging sexual harassment, victimization and unfair dismissal.
However, they were all thrown out with the panel ruling that Ms Conaghan adopted a “conspiracy theory mindset” in which she confused “normal workplace interactions” with something more “sinister”.
A real-life 'Karen' tried to sue her former employers for sexual harassment for not giving her a get-out card when she lost her job. As one of 40 complaints, Karen Conaghan claimed that the failure to recognize her “existence within the company” was a breach of equality laws
An employment tribunal heard that a card had in fact been purchased, but as it was only signed by three people when the worker left, her colleague felt it would be “an insult” to give it to her.
The court heard that Ms Conaghan began working as a commercial liaison lead for airline group IAG GBS in August 2019. In December 2021, she was made redundant due to a company-wide restructuring.
In recent years, 'Karen' has become a widespread Internet meme and has come to mean a middle-aged woman with a 'sense of entitlement' and a 'willingness and desire to complain'.
The court heard Ms Conaghan began working as a commercial liaison lead for airline group IAG GBS in August 2019.
In December 2021, she was fired due to a company-wide restructuring.
In light of her dismissal, she filed several claims with the court.
Mrs Conaghan, who represented herself, complained that a colleague had 'copied' her use of the word 'whizz' on a card to a work colleague, but corrected the spelling, writing 'whizz' instead.
The worker told the panel that on another occasion, another colleague ended a Teams call by saying 'are you annoying Karen?'.
Although the court accepted that “unprofessional” language was used, they said it was a “reaction” to Ms Conaghan, who suggested that she had “done all the hard work” and that it was her turn to “do some ”.
Employment judge Kevin Palmer said it was evidence of the “difficult relationship” between the work colleagues.
Ms. Conaghan also complained that she was not added to a work group chat and this was an example of sexual harassment.
The court said this was “not done deliberately” to “harm” her and that there was nothing “malicious” about the action.
It has also been heard that Ms Conaghan has moved permanently to Richmond, Yorkshire, in September 2021 – despite all staff expected to live within an hour or two of her office in Heathrow, London.
The court said that at no point did her boss consent to her moving to the North, despite her claims that she did.
The worker – who lodged a complaint about her treatment – said colleague Shahid Aziz's failure to provide her with an exit card or acknowledge her 'existence within the company' was an example of harassment.
The court ignored this, accepting Mr Aziz's evidence instead.
He told the court that at that time there were many employees leaving the organization due to “restructuring”.
EJ Palmer said: 'We accept your evidence that by 27 December only two or three people had signed [Ms Conaghan’s] leaving the card and he believed it would have been more insulting to give him the card than to give him no card at all.
'Subsequently, more people signed [Ms Conaghan’s] exit card after she had left, but Mr. Aziz considered it inappropriate to send such a card to [her] subsequently, as she had raised a complaint against him and [another colleague].'
The court said there were also two other men who did not receive a card, so in this regard there was nothing “inconsistent” about the behavior and it could not be related to her sex.
It was heard that Ms Conaghan applied for another role with the company after being made redundant, but it was a London-based job and she had already moved by then.
EJ Palmer said there was “nothing to suggest” that any of the allegations made by Ms Conaghan were related to her sex.
“Many of the acts relied upon did not occur or, if they did, were harmless interactions in the normal course of employment,” added EJ Palmer.
Referring to one of her allegations, the judge said it was “indicative” that Ms Conaghan’s “view that normal interactions are something more sinister”.
“And the fact that she exhibited a 'conspiracy theory mentality' regarding incidents and acts that were simple, normal workplace interactions,” EJ Palmer added.
