Property supervisor sued bosses for discrimination after they did not ship congratulatory WhatsApp message on her one-year anniversary with agency

A senior property manager sued her bosses for discrimination after they failed to congratulate her on her one-year anniversary at the firm on WhatsApp.  

Rita Nunn took her employers HES estate management to tribunal for pregnancy and age discrimination after feeling ‘overlooked’ when she never received the message. 

Ms Nunn first joined the company in August 2022, and later in July 2023 told her employers she was pregnant.

But when her first-year anniversary rolled around and she did not receive a ‘congratulations’ in a company WhatsApp chat, she complained she was being treated unfavourably by bosses, an employment tribunal heard.

A month before, in July 2023, another member of staff had received a ‘congratulatory’ message marking her one-year anniversary.

However after the message, the staff member who was celebrating ‘complained about the large volume of messages being sent on the group’, the firm told the hearing held in South London.

‘As a result the directors decided no longer to mark work anniversaries and to restrict celebratory messages to birthdays,’ the judgement read. 

The occasional anniversary message was sent after July 2023, but often only in ‘exceptions’ such as an employee who was celebrating 20 years of service, it was heard.

Rita Nunn took her employers HEM estate management to tribunal for pregnancy and age discrimination after feeling ‘overlooked’ when she never received an anniversary message. A judge has since dismissed her claims (Pictured: HM Courts & Tribunals in south London)

A colleague whose work anniversary was also in August also received no message, due to the change in policy regarding the group chat. 

However, in September 2023, a message celebrating an employee’s three year anniversary had been ‘sent in error’.

Ms Nunn eventually resigned from her position as a senior property manager after taking 10 months of maternity leave, in September 2024. 

Her claims have since been thrown out by employment judge, Nicholas Cox, who said Ms Nunn was not treated unfavourably and such messages were ‘not an entitlement’.

He also ruled that not receiving congratulatory emails is not an example of pregnancy discrimination.  

‘The failure to send [Ms Nunn] a work anniversary congratulatory message was not unfavourable treatment,’ the judge said. ‘First, the sending of such messages was not an entitlement.

‘It was an additional, non-financial benefit, or to put it another way, more favourable treatment, which had been historically practiced.

‘A failure to treat an employee less favourably than they might have been treated does not in itself constitute unfavourable treatment.

‘Second, and critically, I have found that the practice had been, or was at least intended to have been, ended for all employees before [Ms Nunn’s] work anniversary came round (with a few limited exceptions for, for example, exceptional long service).

‘[Ms Nunn] was not therefore treated unfavourably because the practice was ended.

‘Other employees would also not by the relevant date have been congratulated on first work anniversaries.

‘Accordingly, the claim for pregnancy-related harassment is not well founded and is dismissed.’

Other claims made by Ms Nunn were also dismissed.