Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 02466-22 Gleeson v mirror.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1.
Eileen Gleeson complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
mirror.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 12
(Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined
“Nurse sues Royal British Legion over 'despicable' birthday card joking about
her age”, published on 16 June 2021.
2. The
headline of the online article was followed by the sub-heading: “Eileen Gleeson
said that the birthday card, which featured the caption ‘It’s not about age,
it’s about attitude’ was ‘insulting’ and tried to sue the Royal British Legion
for discrimination”. It reported that the complainant took the charity to an
Employment Tribunal claiming “victimisation, age discrimination and unfair
dismissal”. It reported that the complainant lost her claim after a judge ruled
that “in the context” making a reference to someone’s age was not
discriminatory”, with the tribunal hearing that she never raised the issue of
the card throughout the rest of her employment. The article reported that the
tribunal had heard “[i]nstead, over the next few months the work gradually
began to get on top of [her and] her managers become concerned about her
performance” and that “she was having difficulties dealing with clients and failing
to keep accurate records”. The article reported further that “after a number of
unsuccessful attempts by her manager to engage with her and improve her
performance, she was dismissed”. It then stated that the complainant had
alleged that she felt “she was made to feel like a ‘burden’ to the organisation
and that she was being managed ‘inappropriately’”. The article reported that
following the judgment, the complainant said the birthday card was “insulting”,
“despicable”” “very unprofessional”, and that “the fact that we were all nurses
and should be caring [for] people made it quite shocking”. Immediately after
this quote, the article reported the complainant saying, “It was probably the
most traumatic experience I have gone through”.
3. The
online article was accompanied by a photograph of the complainant. This
appeared twice. The larger version, positioned above the headline, was
captioned “Eileen Gleeson took issue with the birthday card sent by her
colleagues” while the smaller version appeared within the text of the article
and was captioned “Ms Gleeson did not raise the issues during her employment”.
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 the harassment she had received over a period of time at
work.
5. She
also denied that her claim concerned “victimisation, age discrimination and
unfair dismissal”; instead, 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. In addition, she denied that work
had got “on top” of her or that she had been “having difficulties with clients
and failing to keep accurate records”.
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 the photograph, 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, nor was it required to report every specific detail of her
claim, and its focus on the birthday card did not render the article or
misleading. 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 length
of time 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 said that the complainant had been accurately quoted.
9. The
publication did not accept a breach of Clause 2. The reporter had approached
the complainant for comment at her home address and then been invited inside
the complainant’s home to complete the interview. Further, the complainant
allowed the reporter to photograph the birthday card and also willingly 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 characteristics.
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 for 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 the birthday card – as she claimed the article suggested – but
rather to the harassment she said she had experienced from her 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. However, given that the complainant did not dispute
that she had described receiving the card as “insulting”, “despicable”, “very
unprofessional” and “shocking”, 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 then considered whether the article had reported inaccurately that
“work began to get on top” of the complainant and that she was having
“difficulties with clients and failing to keep accurate records”. The Committee
noted that the article made clear that “the tribunal heard” these claims, which
was not in dispute. Further, in circumstances where the Employment Tribunal
found that her former employer had “genuine and legitimate concerns about the
[complainant’s] practice as an Admiral Nurse […] in particular her abilities in
dealing with clients; in identifying issues that an Admiral nurse should deal
with, and in her record keeping”; and where concerns regarding the management
of her case work had been raised by her former employer, the Committee did not
consider that the article was inaccurate or misleading in the way it presented
these claims. There was no breach of Clause 1.
15. 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 further 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.
16. 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)
17. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
18. N/A
Date
complaint received: 12/04/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 27/09/2022
Back to ruling listing