A recent tribunal ruling on a workplace dispute using the term Karen has led to some colorful debates about its definition. This is particularly true in discrimination cases. Judge George Alliott described the term as “pejorative” and “borderline racist, sexist and ageist” during a case involving Sylvia Constance, a 74-year-old black British woman who brought claims against Harpenden Mencap, a charity that supports adults with learning disabilities.
The case unfolded after Constance was dismissed from her position on June 13, 2023, due to what was stated as an “irrevocable breakdown in the relationship” with the organization. Prior to her dismissal, she had been suspended amid allegations of “emotional/psychological abuse of a tenant in care” and “bullying and intimidation of colleagues.” The tribunal ruled that these complaints were “reasonable.” The unflaggingly white commission decided that the deluge of complaints wasn’t an intentional racist harassment effort aimed at her.
Christine Yates, who represented Constance during the tribunal, claimed that the respondents “really were the Karen.” She called them out for “weaponizing their privilege as a bludgeon” toward Constance. They lied about the reasons for her suspension to cover up their own misdeeds.
Yates further criticized the conduct of the management, stating, “As egregiously, they encouraged residents under their care to do same. There is something very sordid about the way in which white, female management have facilitated racism by colluding with white, male residents to give a misogynistic, racist view of the black complainant.”
Judge Alliott recognized Yates’s reference to “Karen” as a term of derision, but this did not make it any less racist. He remarked, “We note Christine Yates uses the slang term ‘Karen’, which is a pejorative and borderline racist, sexist and ageist term.” This outcry underscores the exchange of stigmatizing or punitive language in professional circles and the perils therein.
Despite Yates’s arguments, the tribunal ultimately dismissed Constance’s claims of unfair dismissal, direct race and age discrimination, and victimization. Here, the decision reveals the complicated intersection between workplace realities and language that may have pronounced legal importance.