Scientist excluded from Christmas party loses discrimination claim

A scientist who suffers from agoraphobia and was not invited to a Christmas party has lost a claim for discrimination.

Ms Caughman worked for Echoes Ecology as a consultant ecologist and had declared to her employer that she has ADHD, but was able to manage it so did not require any adjustments.

A few months into her employment, she was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, which she discussed with one of the directors in December 2023.

In the months that followed, she also disclosed other health difficulties, including agoraphobia and complex PTSD, and went on sick leave due to mental health problems in June 2024.

The company made adjustments where possible, including a desk lamp for her light sensitivity and offering to pay for a new tint on her glasses, although this was disputed at the employment tribunal.

After agreeing to a phased return, she went back on sick leave in July 2024 and did not return until she resigned in February 2025.

During this period, Echoes Ecology commissioned an occupational health report, which recommended she work flexible hours with the option to work from home.

The company also removed her email access as it was concerned this would make her more stressed.

When asked if she was ready to return in December 2024, she said she felt the idea of this was overwhelming. The company accepted this and offered to review her return date in the new year.

Caughman then realised she had not been invited to the Christmas party, and emailed her managers to ask why.

Echoes Ecology apologised and said the decision had been based on the advice of occupational health and the fact she had felt the return to work would be too overwhelming.

A director told the tribunal that they felt inviting her would be "insensitive" and cause her more stress.

In her claim, Caughman claimed she had been discriminated against through the restriction of emails, exclusion from the party, and the fact that no annual bonus had been paid.

Employment judge Peter O'Donnell noted that no annual bonus was paid to any staff in 2024, so this could not have been a discriminatory act.

He also found that the restriction of emails did not amount to detriment, as any "reasonable employee" would not consider it a bad thing to be locked out of their emails while off work sick.

On the Christmas party issue, the judge found her exclusion was objectively justified. "The respondent clearly had the legitimate aim of seeking to avoid causing the claimant additional distress of inviting her to an event where it appeared that she did not wish to attend and would not be fit to do so," he said.

Her claims for discrimination, harassment, victimisation, constructive dismissal and failure to provide reasonable adjustments were all dismissed.