Scientist Loses Discrimination Claim Over Uninvited Christmas Party
A scientist who sued her employer after being excluded from a work Christmas party has lost her discrimination claim at an employment tribunal. The case centred on whether the company's decision not to invite her constituted unlawful discrimination against her disabilities.
The Background of the Case
Shelby Caughman, a 35-year-old consultant ecologist, worked for Echoes Ecology, a protected species survey company based in Scotland. She began her employment in April 2023 and subsequently made several complaints about the company's handling of her mental health conditions.
Caughman lives with multiple conditions including agoraphobia, ADHD, autism, and PTSD. Agoraphobia specifically involves anxiety about being in situations where escape might be difficult, such as crowded environments. These conditions formed the basis of her discrimination claim when she discovered she hadn't been invited to the 2024 Christmas gathering attended by eight of her colleagues.
Workplace Adjustments and Sick Leave
According to tribunal documents, Caughman had taken sick leave due to mental health issues in June 2024. After attempting a phased return to work, she went on extended sick leave the following month and ultimately resigned in February 2025 without returning to her position.
During her absence, the company commissioned an occupational health report that recommended specific adjustments to support Caughman's return to work. The report suggested:
- Flexible working hours
- Noise-cancelling headphones
- The option to work from home
- Exemption from work meetings and social gatherings
While Caughman accepted some recommendations, she disputed the wording about being exempt from social gatherings, telling the tribunal she enjoyed such events and simply wanted the choice to attend.
The Christmas Party Decision
When discussions about Caughman returning to work in December 2024 occurred, she emailed her directors stating she found the idea "overwhelming." Her managers responded that there was "no pressure" for her to return and suggested she could delay until the New Year.
Upon realizing she hadn't received an invitation to the Christmas party, Caughman contacted her bosses to inquire why. Her manager explained the decision was based on the occupational health report's recommendations and apologized for any distress caused.
Tribunal Findings and Ruling
Employment Judge Peter O'Donnell ruled that while excluding Caughman from the party invitation did constitute discrimination, it was "justified" given the circumstances. The judge noted that Echoes Ecology had "clearly had the legitimate aim of seeking to avoid causing [Caughman] additional distress" by inviting her to an event she appeared unwilling and unfit to attend.
The tribunal accepted that while Caughman did wish to attend the Christmas night out, the company genuinely believed she didn't want to attend based on the occupational health report and her previous communications about feeling overwhelmed.
Judge O'Donnell stated: "There was a factual basis for [Echoes Ecology's] belief in the content of the OH report and there was nothing to contradict this."
Additional Claims Dismissed
Caughman's additional claims for harassment, victimisation, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and constructive dismissal were all unsuccessful. The tribunal also addressed the company's decision to disable her work email access during her sick leave, noting that a "reasonable employee" would not consider this problematic when absent from work due to illness.
The case highlights the complex balance employers must strike between making reasonable adjustments for disabled employees and protecting their wellbeing, particularly when occupational health recommendations conflict with an employee's expressed preferences.
