HR advisor, 45, who sued when younger colleagues wanted to go clubbing rather than to a restaurant or family friendly farm for the company Christmas party loses age discrimination case

• Claudia Morel-Zifonte Palladino claimed her bash suggestions were derided

A middle-aged HR advisor who sued for age discrimination when her younger colleagues wanted to go clubbing rather than to a restaurant or a farm for the company Christmas party has lost her case. 

Claudia Morel-Zifonte Palladino was offended after her suggestion of a family-friendly venue for the work bash was rejected because other staff wanted to go somewhere more ‘entertaining’.

The 45-year-old said her younger colleagues – the majority of whom were in their 20s – had derided her choice and told an employment tribunal she had suffered a ‘detriment’ as a result.

But her argument was dismissed by a judge, who ruled that simply being disagreed with is not discrimination or harassment.

A preliminary hearing was told Mrs Palladino worked for recruitment company Reed at the firm’s office in Welwyn Garden City, Herts, where she was the second oldest employee.

Claudia Morel-Zifonte Palladino was offended after her suggestion of a family-friendly venue for the work bash was rejected because other staff wanted to go somewhere more ‘entertaining’

The dispute over where to go for the Christmas party – an event ‘replicated in countless workplaces every year’ – occurred at the end of 2021.

Employment judge Robin Lewis said: ‘I was shown a number of texts, messages and emails at the time all of which suggest that a minor banal everyday issue in a workplace – ie answering the question ‘where shall we go out for a Christmas celebration’ – generated in this workplace a wholly disproportionate volume of correspondence and emotion.

‘All of that appears to have been at the instigation of [Mrs Palladino], and, discrimination apart, such material as I saw shows a striking lack of insight on her part into the effect of her conduct at work.

‘I comment that that lack may well form part of the explanation for poor working relationships with younger colleagues.’

The tribunal, held in Watford, heard Mrs Palladino suggested Willows Activity Farm, a venue primarily for children and families.

‘[Her] colleagues wanted a venue which would be less family friendly, more entertaining, and possibly in London,’ the judge said.

‘[Mrs Palladino] repeatedly used the word ‘clubbing’ to describe their wish, although I am not confident that that word was well or accurately used.

‘However, the point was this: all colleagues were asked equally to put forward a selection of venue, and express a choice or preference.

Mrs Palladino worked for recruitment company Reed at the firm’s office in Welwyn Garden City, Herts, where she was the second oldest employee

‘Much of the correspondence was the normal good-humoured correspondence on this topic which is to be expected. No colleague supported [Mrs Palladino’s] proposal, leaving her in a minority of one.

‘It was clear that [her] younger colleagues’ preferences included the possibility of going to London, which the claimant did not want to do.

‘In the event, the disagreement about choice was brought to an end by the management, which selected a restaurant in St Albans as the venue.

‘[Mrs Palladino] in the event did not join the dinner.’

At the tribunal, she complained colleagues had been ‘negative to derisive’ about her proposed venue and that her manager had said she should understand that her young colleagues wanted to go to London for the work party.

Dismissing her argument, Judge Lewis said: ‘[Staff] were asked to make a suggestion. [Mrs Palladino’s] suggestion was supported by no one except [herself].

‘That may have been on grounds of age; it may also have been a legitimate exercise of choice by colleagues, who by a large majority outnumbered [her].

‘In the event, neither view prevailed. I do not accept that the simple act of being disagreed with constitutes a detriment.’

The tribunal also dismissed Mrs Palladino’s discrimination complaint that a colleague in her mid-twenties had remarked to her that she ‘had a lot of experience’ – because it was ‘factually correct’.

The tribunal, held in Watford, heard Mrs Palladino suggested Willows Activity Farm, a venue primarily for children and families

A further claim after a colleague told her not to climb on a chair to put up decorations and offered to do it instead as she was more ‘agile’ was ruled to be an act of ‘courtesy’.

The tribunal ruled that although this sort of remark could appear as ‘patronising or condescending’ it was more likely it was an act of ‘courtesy’.

However, the HR advisor’s additional claims of victimisation and constructive dismissal will proceed to a full hearing, the judge ruled.

These relate to a row she had with colleagues over the use of a training room and accusation that they deliberately brought smelly food into it in retaliation for her complaining about discrimination.

These claims will be heard in full at a later date.

Source: Read Full Article