Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 02465-22 Gleeson v thesun.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1.
Eileen Gleeson complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
thesun.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 12 (Discrimination)
of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “NO CARD FEELINGS
Nurse sues Royal British Legion after colleagues gave her birthday card joking
about her age”, published on 16 June 2021.
2. The
article reported on claims brought by the complainant against her former
employer, the Royal British Legion, before an Employment Tribunal. It reported
that the complainant had sued the organisation for discrimination after her
colleagues had given her a birthday card stating: “It's not about age, it's
about attitude”. It said that her claim of “victimisation, age discrimination
and unfair dismissal by” the organisation was dismissed, with the judge ruling
that “referring to someone’s age in context was not discriminatory” and that
“It was her lack of co-operation and refusal to communicate with her managers
which…led to the termination of the contract.” The article stated that
following the judgment, the complainant said the card was “insulting”,
“despicable” and “very unprofessional”, adding that the “fact that we were all
nurses and should be caring [for] people made it quite shocking”. The article
also reported that the complainant had said “It was probably the most traumatic
experience I have gone through”.
3. The
article was accompanied by a photograph of the complainant, captioned “Eileen
Gleeson sued the Royal Legion for discrimination after her colleagues gave her
a birthday card saying 'It's not about age, it's about attitude’”.
4. The
complainant said the article was inaccurate and misleading, in breach of Clause
1 (Accuracy), because it gave a misleading account of her tribunal. She said
that the focus on the card misrepresented her case. She said that the age
discrimination aspect of her claim related to being excluded from training
which younger colleagues had been permitted to attend; she had been unable to
obtain critical evidence to support this claim from her employer, so the
birthday card had been produced as evidence because it was 'ageist’. Her
comment that it was “probably the most traumatic experience I have gone
through” also contributed to this misleading impression; this comment to the
reporter had not related to the card but rather to the harassment she said she
had experienced over a period of time at work.
5. She
also denied that her claim concerned “victimisation, age discrimination and
unfair dismissal”; rather, it related to the statutory right to be accompanied
to a meeting, less favourable treatment as a part-time worker, harassment, age
discrimination and outstanding holiday pay.
6. The
complainant also expressed concern that a reporter had approached her for
comment following the tribunal at her home address. She said that this approach
and the publication of a photograph of her breached her privacy under Clause 2
(Privacy).
7. She
also said that the article was discriminatory in breach of Clause 12
(Discrimination) by its focus on the birthday card and, by extension, her age.
8. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. The copy had been
supplied by a news agency, and published in good faith. It said that the
article was an accurate report of the complainant’s employment tribunal and her
comments to the reporter. It added that it was entitled to focus on specific
aspects of the case, with the judgment addressing the card as a self-contained
cause of action and the judge commenting that the “sending of a birthday card
making reference to age is not in this context capable of amounting to a
detriment or of unfavourable treatment” of the complainant. It also noted that
the complainant had discussed the issue of the card with the reporter during
the interview; allowed for the card to be photographed; and gave no indication
during the interaction that she considered it a minor or irrelevant part of her
case. The publication maintained that the complainant’s comment about “the most
traumatic experience I have gone through” was made specifically in respect of
the birthday card. While it was unable to provide the reporter’s
contemporaneous notes from the interview to demonstrate this (citing the 11
months between the interview and the complaint being made to IPSO), it did
provide a written statement – authored in response to IPSO’s investigation –
from the reporter, who maintained that the complainant had been accurately
quoted. Further, the publication said that the judgment made clear the
complainant’s claims related to "Age Discrimination, Victimisation, Part
Time Worker Regulations, Unfair Dismissal and Holiday Pay”; it was entitled to
focus upon the discrimination aspect of the case, and this did not render the
article inaccurate or misleading.
9. The
publication did not accept a breach of Clause 2. The reporter had approached
the complainant for comment at her home address; introduced themselves and
specified the news agency they worked for; explained the purpose of their visit
and their interest in the birthday card; and had been invited inside the
complainant’s home to complete the interview. While the complainant had
declined to be photographed holding the birthday card, she had shared the
published image for use in the article with the reporter the following day via
email.
10.
Finally, the publication did not consider that Clause 12 was engaged; the
article did not include any prejudicial or pejorative references to the
complainant’s protected characteristic.
Relevant
Code Provisions
Clause 1
(Accuracy)
i) The
Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted
information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.
ii) A
significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected,
promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology
published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the
regulator.
iii) A
fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when
reasonably called for.
iv) The
Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly
between comment, conjecture and fact.
Clause 2
(Privacy)*
i)
Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home,
physical and mental health, and correspondence, including digital
communications.
ii)
Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private
life without consent. In considering an individual's reasonable expectation of
privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of
information and the extent to which the material complained about is already in
the public domain or will become so.
iii) It
is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or
private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Clause
12 (Discrimination)
i) The
press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's, race,
colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical
or mental illness or disability.
ii)
Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual
orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless
genuinely relevant to the story.
Findings
of the Committee
11. The
article reported on the complainant’s claims before the Employment Tribunal.
While the Committee noted the complainant’s concerns about the focus of the
article, the selection and sourcing of material is a matter of editorial
discretion, as long as the publication of material does not otherwise breach
the Editors’ Code. The article had reported the complainant’s claims as being
victimisation, age discrimination and unfair dismissal and it was not in
dispute that the birthday card, which had a comment about age, had formed part
of the complainant’s evidence in support of her discrimination claim and was
subject to a ruling made by the judge. In circumstances where it was clear from
the text of the article that it was not the sole concern raised by the
complainant against her former employer, the Committee did not consider that
the article’s focus on the birthday card rendered the article inaccurate or
misleading. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
12.
Similarly, the Committee did not consider that the omission of the details of
each specific claim made by the complainant against her former employer
rendered the article inaccurate or misleading; as noted above, the article
included an accurate summary of her claims in broad terms. There was no breach
of Clause 1 on this point.
13. The
Committee then considered the complainant’s concerns that her comments to the
reporter had been misrepresented. The complainant denied that her comment “it
was probably the most traumatic experience [she had] gone through” was made in
relation to receiving the card – as she claimed the article suggested – but
rather to the harassment she said she had experienced from her former employer
over a period of time. The Committee expressed concern that the publication had
been unable to provide any notes or recording of the conversation between the
reporter and complainant. The Committee also noted that the quotation in issue
appeared at the end of the article, in separate quotation marks, making it
unclear as to whether the complainant was referring specifically to the
birthday card or her experiences whilst working for her former employer more
generally. However, given that the complainant did not dispute that she had
described receiving the card as “insulting”, “despicable” and “very
unprofessional”, the Committee did not consider that the manner in which this
comment had been included in the article rendered it significantly inaccurate
or misleading as to the complainant’s position. There was no breach of Clause 1
on this point.
14. The
Committee next considered the concerns raised under Clause 2. This Clause is
designed to ensure that an individual’s private life is respected. The
complainant said that the newspaper had intruded into her privacy through its
approach to her for comment and in its use of a photograph of her. The
Committee did not consider that the approach made by the reporter, which
resulted in the complainant consenting to an interview and inviting the journalist
inside her home, represented an intrusion into her private life. In addition,
where the photograph had been provided freely by the complainant to the
reporter following the conclusion of the interview, the publication was
entitled to consider that the complainant had consented to the publication of
this image. It also noted that the photograph showed the complainant’s
likeness; it did not reveal any private information about her or show her
engaged in any private activity. As such, the Committee could not find that the
publication of this photograph constituted an intrusion into the complainant’s
private life. There was no breach of Clause 2.
15. The
terms of Clause 12 state that publications must avoid prejudicial or pejorative
reference to an individual’s protected characteristic. There is no reference to
“age” in this Clause. As such, the terms of Clause 12 were not engaged by the
complainant’s concerns.
Conclusion(s)
16. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
17. N/A
Date
complaint received: 12/04/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 27/09/2022.
Back to ruling listing