- Do you have a story? Email lettice.bromovsky@dailymail.co.uk
A socially anxious scientist who claimed disability discrimination after she was not invited to her work Christmas has lost her claim.
Ecologist Shelby Caughman sued Echoes Ecology after she was deliberately not invited to a small festive gathering while off sick with anxiety-related issues.
The 35-year-old, who suffers from agoraphobia – a condition involving fear of leaving home or being in crowded places – tried to claim that being excluded from the eight-person work party amounted to disability discrimination.
However, colleagues decided against inviting her because they believed attending would cause her further distress, particularly as she had said she felt too ‘overwhelmed’ to return to work at the time.
An employment judge ruled that while the decision arose from her disability, it was justified in the circumstances and did not breach discrimination law.
A tribunal heard that Ms Caughman started working for Echoes Ecology as a consultant ecologist in April 2023, alongside seven other colleagues.
She suffered from ADHD, autism, complex post-traumatic stress disorder, and agoraphobia, and had made the company aware of her conditions.
The agoraphobia that she was diagnosed with is a condition where people are fearful of going outside or being in crowds.
Ms Caughman made several grievance complaints to the company from a ‘build up of work stress’ and a ‘lack of reasonable adjustments’.
In June 2024, she took a week off as Statutory Sick Pay after she had issues with her mental health and agreed she would have a phased return to work following this.
From the beginning of July 2024 Ms Caughman went on sick leave and did not return to work until she resigned in February 2025.
During this time, Echoes Ecology got in touch with her to see if she was well enough to return to work.
An occupational health report was made by an occupational therapist, which claimed that Ms Caughman needed adjustments to be made to allow her return because of her disabilities, like flexible working hours and being able to work from home.
The report also stated that she wanted to be exempt from team meetings and social gatherings so that she could miss them.
After the report was produced, Ms Caughman clarified in a meeting that she did not agree with the wording around exemption from meeting and social gatherings because she enjoyed social gatherings and ‘just wanted a choice’.
Although she was supposed to return to work in December, she said it was making her feel ‘overwhelmed’ and discussed moving the return date into the new year.
The company held the Christmas party in December, and they decided not to invite Ms Caughman to this to ‘avoid creating further anxiety for her’.
They said this decision was based on the report provided to them about her agoraphobia and also that she was too ‘overwhelmed’ to return to work.
Ms Caughman sent an email saying that she had noticed she was not invited to the Christmas party, and she was told they thought it would be ‘insensitive’ and cause her stress if they did, but apologised if they had misinterpreted the situation.
The tribunal ruled that not inviting Ms Caughman to the Christmas party was discrimination, but it was a ‘justified’ reaction to her comments about her mental health at the time.
Employment Judge Peter O’Donnell said: ‘The Tribunal considers that this was because of ‘something’ arising from her disability, that is, the fact that she was absent from work and [Echoes Ecology’s] view that it would be insensitive to invite her in circumstances where they understood (mistakenly) that she would be unfit to attend and that, based on the OH report, she was seeking to be exempt from team meetings and social gatherings.
‘There was, therefore, discrimination arising from disability in respect of the exclusion from the Christmas night out.
‘However, the Tribunal considers that this was objectively justified.
‘[Echoes Ecology] clearly had the legitimate aim of seeking to avoid causing [Ms Caughman] 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.
‘The Tribunal accepts that it was not [Ms Caughman’s] position that she did not wish to attend the Christmas night but the Tribunal also accepts that it was Echoes Ecology’s genuine belief that she did not, even if this was mistaken.
‘There was a factual basis for [Echoes Ecology’s] belief in the content of the OH report and there was nothing to contradict this.’
Ms Caughman also unsuccessfully claimed for harassment, victimisation, reasonable adjustment and constructive dismissal.
