Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 07734-22 Gleeson v Mail Online
Summary
of Complaint
1. Eileen
Gleeson complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail
Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 12
(Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined
“Nurse, 58, sues Royal British Legion for age discrimination after colleagues
sent her birthday card saying 'It's not about age, it's about attitude'”,
published on 15 June 2021.
2. The
article reported that the complainant had taken the Royal British Legion to an
Employment Tribunal claiming “victimisation, age discrimination and unfair
dismissal”. It reported that the complainant had sued her former employer for
discrimination after her colleagues gave her a birthday card which depicted an
“elderly woman riding a motorbike with the words ‘it’s not about age, it’s
about attitude’”. 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 “instead, over the next few months the work gradually began
to get on top of [her and] her managers become concerned about her performance”.
It reported further that the judge found it was her “lack of cooperation and
her refusal to communicate with her manager which caused the ongoing
difficulties and ultimately led to the termination” of her contract with the
organisation. It also stated that “she was having difficulties dealing with
clients and failing to keep accurate records”. It stated that following the
judgment, the complainant said the card was “insulting”, “despicable” and “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
article was accompanied by a photograph of the complainant, captioned “Ellie
Gleeson (pictured) said she was insulted when her colleagues sent her a
birthday card which showed a pensioner riding a motorbike and took her employer
to a tribunal”.
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.
6. 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”. Further, she said that the caption of the photograph incorrectly referred to her as “Ellie”.
7. 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).
8. 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.
9. 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. It
said that it was entitled to focus on specific aspects of the case, and the
birthday card addressed the element of the tribunal with greatest public
interest: changes in contemporary workplace interactions and what people
consider to be offensive. Notwithstanding this, the publication said that, in
response to the complaint, it was willing to adopt the complainant’s position
that her comment to the reporter about the trauma she had endured had been in
reference to the harassment she had received over a period of time at work,
rather than the birthday card. Though the publication did not consider that the
presentation of these comments rendered the article inaccurate or misleading,
it offered, in an effort to resolve the matter, to remove the disputed comments
and to publish the following footnote clarification:
“In a
previous version of this article we included excepts from an interview with Ms
Gleeson, a section of which has since been removed. Ms Gleeson would like to
clarify that her comment this was 'the most traumatic experience I have gone
through' was intended to refer to the entirety of her tribunal case, and not
solely her complaint about the birthday card. We are happy to make this clear”.
10. 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 focus did not render the article
inaccurate or misleading. Notwithstanding this, the publication also offered,
in an effort to resolve the matter, to amend the article to make clear that her
claims also included “unfavourable treatment” and “holiday pay”.
11. In
addition, the publication did not accept that the article was inaccurate to
report that work had got “on top” of the complainant or that she had
experienced “difficulties with clients and failing to keep accurate records”.
It was entitled to characterise the concerns made by her former employers in
the way it did, and it had a sufficient basis to do so.
12. With
regards to the caption of the photograph, the publication accepted that it had
misspelt the complainant’s name. However, the publication did not accept that
this represented a significant inaccuracy as the complainant was correctly
identified throughout the rest of the article. Nonetheless, the newspaper
offered to correct this error.
13. The
publication did not accept a breach of Clause 2. The reporter had approached
the complainant for comment at her home address; had been invited inside the
complainant’s home to complete the interview; and been supplied with the
published image for use in the article the following day via email.
14.
Finally, the publication did not accept a breach of Clause 12. The article did
not include any prejudicial or pejorative references to the complainant’s
protected characteristic.
15. The
complainant said that the proposed amendments to the online article did not
resolve her complaint. The matter was passed to the Complaints Committee.
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
16. 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 the text of the article made
clear 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.
17.
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.
18. The
Committee then considered the complainant’s concerns that her comments to
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 experience from her employer over a period
of time. In circumstances where it was not in dispute that the complainant 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.
19. The
Committee then considered whether the article had reported inaccurately that
work got “on top” of the complainant and that she had experienced “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 stated 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 employer, the Committee did not
consider that the article was inaccurate or misleading on these points. There
was no breach of Clause 1.
20. The
Committee did not consider that misnaming the complainant represented a
significant inaccuracy, particularly in circumstances where the error had
appeared besides a photograph of her and her correctly spelt, full name had
been included within the sub-headline and throughout the text of the article.
There was no breach of Clause 1.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23.
While the Committee did not find a breach of the Editors’ Code, it welcomed the
steps taken by the publication to resolve the matter.
Conclusion(s)
24. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
25. N/A
Date
complaint received: 12/04/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 27/09/2022
Back to ruling listing