A consultant ecologist who was left off the guest list for her employer’s Christmas gathering has lost her discrimination case.
Ms Caughman joined Echoes Ecology and informed the firm that she had ADHD, explaining that she managed the condition independently and did not need workplace adjustments. Several months later, in December 2023, she told a director she had recently been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder.
Over the following months she disclosed further health issues, including agoraphobia and complex PTSD, and went on sick leave in June 2024 due to mental health difficulties.
Echoes Ecology introduced some measures to support her, such as providing a desk lamp to help with light sensitivity and offering to cover the cost of a new tint for her glasses, although this point was disputed during the tribunal hearing.
She agreed to a phased return but went back on sick leave in July 2024, eventually resigning in February 2025.
During this time, the organisation sought an occupational health assessment, which advised that she be allowed flexible hours and the option to work remotely. The firm also removed her email access, believing that continued messages might increase her stress levels.
When asked in December 2024 whether she felt able to return, she said the prospect was overwhelming. The employer accepted this and suggested revisiting the matter in the new year.
It was then that she noticed she had not been invited to the Christmas party and contacted managers for an explanation. Echoes Ecology apologised, saying the decision was based on occupational health guidance and her own indication that returning to work felt too difficult. A director later told the tribunal they believed an invitation would have been insensitive and risked adding to her distress.
In her claim, Caughman argued she had been discriminated against through the email restriction, the lack of a bonus, and her exclusion from the event.
Employment judge Peter O’Donnell noted that no staff received a bonus in 2024, so this could not amount to discrimination. He also found that limiting her email access was not detrimental, because any reasonable employee would not view being locked out of emails during sick leave as negative.
Regarding the Christmas party, the judge concluded the organisation’s approach was 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.
All claims, including discrimination, harassment, victimisation, constructive dismissal and failure to make reasonable adjustments, were dismissed.
This article is based on a piece written for Personnel Today
