6 Examples of HR Gone Wrong

Back in 2015, fashion retailer Urban Outfitters (URBN) caused chaos when they asked staff to work for free.

The company framed this as a volunteering opportunity for store-based employees to support the warehouse during a busy seasonal period. The request was presented as a positive team-building exercise and a way to build goodwill among staff.

Naturally, their request for their staff to work a six-hour shift for free was the subject of much derision. As many pointed out, the company wanted the extra working power to get through the busy period but weren’t willing to offer any financial compensation for doing so.

The email was leaked by Gawker, and readers were quick to point out that CEO Richard Hayne has a net worth over a billion dollars, making him one of the richest people in Pennsylvania.

Employees at Urban Outfitters generally make minimum wage, which for many of them meant that volunteering hours was simply not an option.

What does the law say?

Although this incident happened in the US, we’ll analyse it using UK employment law to keep it relevant for HR professionals and people managers.

In the UK, these staff members would clearly fall under an employment contract rather than being genuine volunteers. Volunteer roles typically don’t have contracts of employment, nor do they provide the same legal protections.

Importantly, there’s no blanket law requiring overtime to be paid in the UK. However, any unpaid hours must not cause an employee’s average pay to fall below the National Minimum Wage. Since these employees already earned minimum wage, unpaid extra hours would be illegal. Additionally, if their contracts explicitly required overtime pay, failure to provide it would be a breach of contract.

How could HR have prevented this?

Asking employees to donate their time to a profitable organisation was a clear example of bad HR practice. Several preventative steps could have been taken:

Workforce planning: Seasonal peaks are predictable in retail. HR should collaborate with marketing and operations to forecast demand and arrange temporary staffing.
Fair pay strategy: Paying above minimum wage helps build trust and may make staff more willing to be flexible with extra hours.
Clear policies on volunteering: According to CIPD and NCVO guidance, employers must never blur the line between paid employment and volunteering. Volunteers should not be subject to contracts of employment, and organisations should at least cover expenses like food, travel, and accommodation.
Internal communication checks: HR should review the legal and ethical implications of staff requests before issuing communications. A better alternative might have been encouraging senior staff or managers to contribute time, rather than asking the lowest-paid employees.

Toxic Leadership: A Culture of Fear at Work

Culture Trip gained recognition as a popular travel content platform, but behind the scenes, reports revealed a very different culture.

A damning editorial in WIRED featured accusations from former employees, many of which centred on the behaviour of CEO and founder Kris Naudts. Staff described a toxic workplace culture shaped by belittling, insulting, and bullying behaviour.

While the company promoted wellness benefits, the CEO allegedly pressured staff to work long hours and even demanded confidential information about previous employers. Employees reported extreme uncertainty, sudden layoffs, and constant shifts in company direction. Other accusations included:

Bullying and humiliation: Employees claimed Naudts publicly belittled staff, including throwing crumpled paper at one worker.
Sudden firings and redundancies: 20 employees were reportedly made redundant via a single email, with little explanation or support.
HR exclusion: During layoffs, HR was only consulted after a termination list was mistakenly left in a photocopier.
Heavy use of NDAs: Employees were required to sign non-disclosure agreements, silencing them from sharing their experiences.
Unilateral pay changes: Pay dates were moved from the 28th to the 5th of each month with just two weeks’ notice, leaving staff struggling to cover rent and bills.

What does the law say?

Not all poor leadership is illegal, but many of these allegations raise potential legal issues under UK employment law:

Workplace bullying isn’t unlawful unless linked to a protected characteristic (e.g., gender, race, religion). However, harassment is illegal, and repeated humiliation could be considered unlawful.
Under the Health and Safety at Work Act, employers must protect staff from violence and harassment, whether by colleagues or management.
Unfair dismissal rights: employees with 2+ years of service can demand a written statement and appeal dismissal decisions. Those with less service may still claim unlawful dismissal if based on discrimination or protected rights (e.g., maternity leave).
GDPR/data protection: confidential staff information left unsecured (such as in a photocopier) could constitute a data breach, requiring ICO reporting within 72 hours.
Changes to pay dates: legal only if employees are consulted and contracts updated. Failure to do so risks a breach of contract.

How could HR have prevented this?

This case highlights how weak HR involvement allows toxic leadership to spiral into reputational and legal risk. A more empowered HR function could have:

Intervened early to prevent workplace bullying and harassment from escalating.
Ensured fair redundancy procedures were followed, with consultation and communication to affected staff.
Advised leadership on the risks of changing employment contracts without proper process.
Flagged the contradiction between wellness perks and a culture of overwork, which undermines employee trust.
Promoted better alignment between company values, leadership behaviour, and HR policies.
Ultimately, HR should be positioned as a strategic partner with the authority to challenge leadership decisions. Without that, even strong wellness initiatives can’t mask a toxic workplace culture.

When Layoffs Go Public: A Social Media Meltdown

In 2013, a mass layoff at HMV sparked one of the most memorable cases of employee backlash. Around 60 employees were suddenly dismissed, and one HR professional decided to make their frustration public by live-tweeting the firings from the company’s official Twitter account.

Over the course of 15 minutes, the anonymous employee broadcasted details of the layoffs as marketing executives scrambled to regain control of the account. Although the tweets were quickly deleted, journalists had already captured screenshots, and the reputational damage was done.

The incident came at a time when the company was already struggling with store closures and negative press, making the HR misstep even more visible.

What does the law say?

Employee sabotage via social media raises complex legal questions. Under the Computer Misuse Act, unauthorised access to accounts is a criminal offence. However, if the employee had legitimate access as part of their role, the law is less clear. Here's what you need to know:

If the individual was authorised to access the account but used it for unauthorised purposes, the company might pursue civil claims but not necessarily criminal charges.
Since the tweets reportedly reflected true events, the employee could not be prosecuted for libel.
Ultimately, the organisation remains responsible for the security of its data and digital platforms.

How could HR have prevented this?

This incident illustrates both the emotional impact of poorly managed layoffs and the practical importance of offboarding protocols. HR could have mitigated risk in several ways:

Compassionate communication: Even in mass redundancies, staff should be treated with respect and transparency. Personalised communication (ideally one-to-one or in small groups) helps soften the blow and reduce feelings of betrayal.
Advance planning: News spreads quickly inside organisations. If layoffs must be staggered, HR should move swiftly to inform all affected employees before rumours escalate.
Employee support: Providing outplacement services, counselling, or additional resources can help employees process the change and reduce resentment.
Restricting access: HR and IT should collaborate on a structured offboarding process, ensuring that access to sensitive systems (such as social media accounts) is revoked immediately when layoffs occur.

By handling redundancies with empathy and securing systems promptly, HR can prevent a difficult business decision from escalating into a social media crisis.

How Mishandling Medical Conditions Becomes Workplace Discrimination

Disability accommodations must be handled with sensitivity, discretion, and fairness. Unfortunately, this wasn’t the case at Weston Homes, where an employee with type 1 diabetes faced discrimination and harassment that ultimately cost the company £14,000 in compensation.

The claimant, Holly Carr, alleged that the company mishandled her condition from the very start of her employment.

At a welcome party, Carr mentioned that she wouldn’t be drinking alcohol due to her diabetes. She had chosen not to disclose her condition during the interview process, as it didn’t affect her ability to perform her job.

Soon after, Carr accidentally discovered an internal email exchange between managers making jokes about her condition. Matters escalated when her line manager asked HR to meet with her about “reasonable adjustments.” During the meeting, the manager reportedly asked invasive and excessive questions, which a judge later ruled to be inappropriate and heavy-handed. Further incidents followed:

Carr’s diabetic status was revealed publicly by her manager when introducing her to first aiders, which the tribunal deemed intrusive and embarrassing.
The manager allegedly created situations to test her medical management, leading to intimidation and harassment.
When illness from low blood sugar delayed her work, she was told not to mention it or risk immediate dismissal.
Just three months into her role, Carr was suddenly dismissed without clear examples of performance issues or prior warnings.

What does the law say?

Under UK employment law, employers must make reasonable adjustments for employees with disabilities, and these must be managed discreetly. Key points include:

Disability discrimination: Treating an employee differently because of a medical condition is unlawful. In Carr’s case, harassment linked to her diabetes qualified as discrimination against a protected class under the Equality Act 2010.
Confidentiality: Employees are under no obligation to disclose to disclose a disability unless they require adjustments. If they do, employers must not share this information without explicit consent.
Performance management and dismissal: Employers must follow fair procedures, including documenting performance issues, issuing warnings, and giving opportunities for improvement. Even in cases of gross misconduct, investigation is required before dismissal.

The judge ruled that the behaviour of both the manager and HR in this case amounted to disability discrimination and harassment, making the dismissal unlawful.

How could HR have prevented this?

This case highlights how poor HR practice can escalate into costly legal action. HR could have intervened in several ways:

Lead sensitive conversations: HR should have taken control of the meeting on reasonable adjustments, preventing the manager from asking intrusive questions.
Address managerial behaviour: If a manager appeared adversarial, HR should have stepped in with guidance, training, and warnings about potential legal consequences.
Build trust with employees: Carr may not have felt safe approaching HR after seeing them fail to step in. Active monitoring and support could have reassured her that HR was on her side.
Follow proper dismissal processes: No employee should be dismissed without warnings, clear documentation, or the opportunity to improve. HR should ensure managers understand and comply with fair dismissal procedures.

With better oversight and proactive involvement, HR could have protected both the employee and the organisation, avoiding the reputational and financial damage caused by a disability discrimination case.

Pregnancy Discrimination Is Never “Just HR Trouble”

Elise Walker joined Arco Environmental and, three weeks later, informed the company she was pregnant. Following this, she faced alleged harassment and abusive behaviour from the director and his wife, who both worked in the business.

Walker said she was treated differently after revealing her pregnancy — ignored, subjected to derogatory comments, and asked inappropriate questions about whether she knew she was expecting when she accepted the job.

The managing director later admitted to suggesting that Walker had taken the role to secure maternity pay from her new employer. Feeling distressed, Walker resigned after a final meeting, later bringing claims of unfair dismissal, harassment, breach of contract, and failure to provide written particulars of employment.

The tribunal agreed, noting the employer’s failure to provide proper documentation and its role in the harassment, which increased the amount awarded to Walker.

What does the law say?

Although Walker resigned, her departure was the result of harassment, making this a case of constructive dismissal. Normally, employees must have two years’ service to claim unfair dismissal, but pregnancy discrimination is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, allowing her to bring a claim regardless of length of service.

The tribunal found that the company’s actions amounted to discrimination and unfair dismissal.

Failure to provide written particulars does not usually result in direct compensation, but it aggravated the circumstances and contributed to a higher payout.

How could HR have prevented this?

This situation could have been avoided with proactive HR intervention and better management practices:

Proper HR support: If the company had an in-house HR department or effective HR partner, inappropriate questioning could have been prevented, and the employee supported from the outset.
Fair treatment and investigation: HR should ensure every employee is treated respectfully, investigate allegations of harassment, and hold leadership accountable.
Documentation and onboarding: Providing contracts, job descriptions, and written particulars is a basic legal requirement and helps protect both parties.
Parental leave planning: Rather than viewing pregnancy as a problem, HR can manage it through succession planning and skills development, preparing other team members to step in when needed.

A well-structured HR function ensures compliance, and protects employees and leaders alike from costly and reputationally damaging tribunal cases.

How a Well-Intentioned Diversity Session Became a Legal Nightmare

Pobl Group, a Swansea-based housing association, hosted an equality and diversity training session for staff. The session was intended to promote inclusion, but it resulted in a serious HR issue.

Theresa Georges, a cleaner in the company, attended the training and was shocked by how it was run. The trainer asked participants to shout out offensive words so she could write them in full on a flipchart. Attendees were encouraged to use the most derogatory and offensive words they could think of.

As the only person of colour in the room, Georges felt uncomfortable and singled out. Repeating racial slurs without context created an intimidating and offensive environment.

After the training, Georges requested annual leave and did not attend work the next day. She contacted her line manager to explain her distress and filed a formal complaint with HR. She later took sick leave due to stress.

The HR investigation concluded that there was no racial harassment, and Georges appealed. Her appeal was rejected, so she took the matter to an employment tribunal. The tribunal unanimously ruled in her favour, condemning the training methods and the way HR handled her complaint. The employer’s claim that the complaint was retaliation for a previous timesheet issue was dismissed.

What does the law say?

The Equality Act 2010 protects Georges in this case, as the trainer and attendees acted in an unwanted manner based on race. This had the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading and offensive environment for Georges.

The intention of the trainer to educate is irrelevant, as the tribunal found that the outcome was a racially offensive atmosphere. The trainer failed to give full context as to why the words were used and why a different training method was not used.

The employment tribunal has ruled in a number of similar cases and this precedent was used to inform their decision in this case.

How could HR have prevented this?

Training on discrimination is important, but this case shows us how important it is that this is handled with care.

Georges felt singled out as the only person of colour in this training, which may also indicate that diversity in recruitment is lacking. It’s possible that if the training team was more diverse, this would have been pointed out as inappropriate from the outset.

Georges voiced her issues with the training, but the result of the investigation was not in her favour. This could have been because the investigator was not well versed in case law, as the cases cited in the tribunal’s decision could have been used as an indicator of whether the training was lawful.

This may be down to a lack of knowledge and experience in the HR department. It’s essential for HR practitioners to look beyond the complaint to the law and recent cases, to get a full view of the appropriate action.