A British lady, Rita Nunn, has sued her bosses for discrimination after they failed to congratulate her on her first anniversary at the firm.
Nunn dragged her employers, HES Estate Management, before an employment tribunal for pregnancy and age discrimination after feeling ‘overlooked’ when she never received the message.
The lady joined HES in August 2022, the court heard. By following July, she told her employers she was pregnant.
Nunn observed her maternity leave and returned to work. However, when her first-year anniversary fell due she expected to get a ‘congratulations’ in a company WhatsApp chat. When none came, she complained that she was being treated unfavourably by bosses.
She noted that a month before, in July 2023, another member of staff had received a ‘congratulatory’ message marking her one-year anniversary.
The company, however, told the tribunal that the staff member who was celebrating complained about the large volume of messages being sent on the group.
The firm said that as a consequence, the directors decided that work anniversaries would no longer be marked. Celebratory messages were then limited to birthdays.
Exceptions were made for staff members celebrating a landmark, such as an employee who was celebrating 20 years of service, the tribunal was told.
The firm named Nunn’s colleague, whose work anniversary was also in August, but got no message, due to the policy change.
It said that in September 2023, a message celebrating an employee’s three-year anniversary had been ‘sent in error’.
Nunn reportedly resigned from her position as a senior property manager after taking 10 months of maternity leave, in September 2024.
In her judgement, the employment judge, Nicholas Cox, threw out the case, saying that Ms Nunn was not treated unfavourably and such messages were ‘not an entitlement’.
The judge further ruled that not receiving a congratulatory email was not an example of pregnancy discrimination.
He also noted that, more importantly, the practice had been, or was at least intended to have been ended for all employees before Nunn’s work anniversary came round.
‘[Ms Nunn] was not therefore treated unfavourably because the practice was ended,” he ruled.
All the complainant’s claims were dismissed.
Also Read: Female prison officer, 23, admits to amorous relationship with prisoner in UK
