AITAH for refusing to chip in for a coworker's wedding gift after literally being uninvited?
The user, a 27-year-old female (OP), works at a marketing agency with a coworker named Jess (31F) who is getting married next month.
Jess initially invited the entire eight-person team to the wedding, and the team is generally friendly, engaging in typical work social activities.
When the office manager, Sarah, began collecting money for a group gift of $200 per person, the OP was prepared to contribute.
However, Jess later informed the OP via text that she had to cut her from the guest list due to venue capacity, yet the OP knows all other team members remain invited.
The OP suspects this change is because Jess invited an influential former coworker, leading the OP to question whether they should still contribute the full amount to the group gift when they are uninvited.
Subscribe to our Newsletter
Get the latest stories delivered to your inbox.
The core conflict centers on the expectation of continued social and financial participation in a celebratory event (the group gift) despite being explicitly excluded from the event itself.
The OP feels slighted by the perceived reason for the uninvitation—prioritizing a high-value professional contact—while still being held to the group's financial standard, creating a dilemma between maintaining superficial workplace harmony and honoring their personal exclusion.
The central question is whether the OP is wrong for refusing to pay the full group contribution ($200) for a wedding they are not attending, especially when the invitation was rescinded under questionable circumstances.
Should the OP contribute a token amount or nothing at all, or is the expectation of maintaining 'group harmony' regarding the gift payment a valid workplace obligation regardless of guest status?
Strong Takes and Sharper Words from the Crowd:
The thread exploded with reactions. Whether agreeing or disagreeing, everyone had something to say — and they said it loud.