University worker sues for racial harassment after boss banned her from putting up Christmas tree in November

An employment tribunal in the United Kingdom has dismissed claims by Marilyn Maher, a Black administrator at the University of Hertfordshire, that she faced racial harassment after her supervisor told her not to set up Christmas trees in November. The panel ruled that telling Maher not to erect the trees until December was a reasonable management instruction and did not amount to race-based harassment or direct discrimination.

Maher began working for the University of Hertfordshire in August 2019. In June 2022 she took on the role of School Administrator and Facilities Coordinator in the School of Physics, Engineering and Computer Science. The tribunal heard that on November 21 Maher emailed her supervisor, Jacqueline Roberts, seeking permission to set up Christmas trees in the department. According to Maher, Roberts did not respond to the email and instead confronted her in the corridor in a loud voice, telling her that it was too early to put up the trees. Maher and her colleagues had already begun erecting the trees when Roberts spoke with her, and the administrator said she believed this was a public rebuke. On December 2 Roberts emailed Maher asking her to proceed with the trees, but Maher reportedly did not respond and later told a colleague that she refused to comply. As a result, students who were paid to perform basic tasks were asked to undertake the job instead.

The tribunal also examined an incident in August, when a small leaving party was organized for a departing employee. Food and drinks were provided, and Maher testified that she consciously did not eat a biscuit because she is borderline diabetic. She said Roberts rebuked her for taking food, describing her as rude and telling her to wait for the departing colleague to arrive before eating. Maher claimed that she felt humiliated in front of other staff and that the remark contributed to a sense of being treated differently because of her race. Roberts said she only instructed Maher to wait until the departing colleague had arrived to eat, and she rejected the accusation of rudeness, noting there was clingfilm over the food.

A November meeting between Maher and Roberts centered on concerns about Maher’s performance and conduct. Following that discussion, Maher wrote to the school dean alleging that Roberts and another colleague were disrespectful and rude. She said they would “suffer the consequences.” A subsequent, fractious meeting with her line manager preceded Maher’s resignation the following day. Maher then filed a claim alleging direct race discrimination and harassment related to race.

Employment Judge Sally Cowen concluded that while Roberts did not speak to Maher in a loud voice, and the timing of the December instruction could be viewed as an unwanted directive, the decision and its communication were not connected to Maher’s race. The tribunal characterized the November directive as a reasonable management instruction and found that the conduct, though uncomfortable to Maher, did not constitute race-based harassment.

The ruling means the tribunal did not find sufficient evidence that the Christmas-tree dispute or the March–August interactions were motivated by race. It underscores the challenges of distinguishing between workplace discipline or management decisions and alleged discriminatory conduct, particularly in cases where interpersonal tension and disciplinary actions intersect with protected characteristics. The University of Hertfordshire did not face a finding of race-based harassment in this matter, though the proceedings highlighted the broader issue of how supervisory communications are perceived across a diverse workforce.

The case illustrates how tribunals assess alleged harassment and discrimination in workplace settings, balancing management prerogatives with employees’ claims of biased treatment. The panel’s decision emphasizes that, in this instance, the timing and manner of the instruction were not shown to be driven by Maher’s race, according to the judge. The university, for its part, maintained that it sought to regulate holiday decorations in line with campus norms and safety considerations, a position the tribunal ultimately did not dispute in terms of race.

As Maher’s resignation preceded the tribunal’s decision, the outcome does not alter the employment relationship, but it does set a precedent for how similar disputes may be evaluated when race and workplace policy intersect. The case remains a reference point for discussions about workplace equity, managerial instructions, and the line between legitimate administrative decisions and potential discriminatory conduct in academic institutions.