A charity worker sued for racism after her colleagues did not organise a birthday lunch despite not telling anyone about the milestone.

Karen Adams, who is black, said she had been the victim of racial discrimination and that it was 'sadistic' that she had not been given a meal for her big birthday, the exact age of which has not been made public.

Ms Adams said a white colleague had her 50th birthday a month later and there had been a lunch to celebrate, which she said proved the snub was racially motivated.

But an employment tribunal in Birmingham found 'the only reason' it was not 'celebrated more widely' was because 'nobody knew' it was her birthday.

Ms Adams's employer, the mental health charity People Potential Possibilities, was actually found to have been 'surprisingly lenient' with her after shortcomings including lateness and record-keeping during her probation period.

From November 2022 Ms Adams was employed as a tenancy support worker and colleagues said she was 'lovely' but 'shocking' at admin and often late to work.

The tribunal found there would have been sufficient justification for the company to fail Ms Adams's probation but said it was 'supportive' of her because of her 'excellence' in some areas such as caring for service users.

Employment Judge Robin Broughton said: 'When a birthday was approaching, it was the [charity's] practice to send round an email to the immediate team inviting contributions for a card and gift.'

Ms Adams admitted she 'didn't always contribute to others' birthdays as was her right', a practice which served to 'alienate' colleagues.

However when her birthday - January 30 - was approaching, a call for contributions was sent.

Mr Broughton added Ms Adams's line manager had been absent on the day of her birthday so her card and gift were given to her the following day.

He said: 'She apparently sent an email thanking her colleagues to which, she said, she only received one response.

Mr Broughton said it was 'common ground' that she did not tell anyone it was her birthday, 'even her friends'.

'She believed that because this information would have been somewhere in her records her line manager would and should have been aware of it but, for confidentiality and GDPR reasons, that was not the case.'

Even though Ms Adams knew this, the judge said she continued with her case.

He said: 'It was surprising that, even when this was explained to, and seemingly accepted by [Ms Adams], she maintained her allegation of discrimination in this regard.

'This was based on the fact that a white colleague had a 50th birthday the following month that she had widely publicised and was looking forward to, such that a lunch was arranged with the wider team.

'That lunch took place on February 14, 2024. [Ms Adams] had been encouraged to attend but did not.'

The judge said Ms Adams was not the only colleague who had not gone to the lunch but 'took personally' an email from her line manager saying it was a shame not everyone had attended.

'There were a couple of other 'regular' birthdays that month that were treated exactly the same as [Ms Adams's] had been,' Mr Broughton said.

At a meeting in February 2024 Ms Adams said she was upset nothing had been done for her birthday during a meeting, where her manager 'expressed surprise' because she had not been aware.

Two days later Ms Adams raised a formal complaint despite the manager's belief the meeting had fixed the problem.

She said it was 'sadistic' that nothing had been done for her birthday and it was 'bullying' and racist or ageist.

An investigation in April 2024 found Ms Adams had not been 'excluded' but instead chose to 'self-isolate'.

It also found that it would have been 'impossible' for management to know when Ms Adams's birthday was because of data protection but if they had, more would have been done.

Therefore it concluded that there was no discrimination.

Ms Adams resigned from the charity that month and started working at Coventry City Council.

She then took her case to an employment tribunal in Birmingham which dismissed her claim.

Mr Broughton said: 'It was common ground that [Ms Adams] did not share the fact that she had a big birthday approaching with anyone, let alone her managers.

'As a result, there was no way that they could have known. I accept that they were both surprised and upset to find out about it after the event.

'In contrast, it was not in dispute that [Ms Adams's white colleague] widely publicised her upcoming 'big' birthday and so, in accordance with the [charity's] practice, more was made of it, with a wider circulation list and a lunch and presents arranged.

'I heard that something similar happened for a black employee in the team a couple of years prior.

'In those circumstances, whilst there was a difference of treatment, there was no basis for any suggestion that the reason was race.

'The only reason for [Ms Adams's] birthday not being celebrated more widely was that nobody knew of it.'