And he can cry if he wants to* (when the relationship with that co-worker sours even more) (*that song just popped into my head when I saw your comment)

@PeterM probably tears of joy, from the description of this coworker.

It's not because you get to decide who you invite to your party that it's appropriate to invite everyone but one person. These are two totally unrelated propositions.

Wow, cool. 'Cos I was hoping to invite my mistress to the party my wife has organised for me. Glad to hear that's not inappropriate. I mean, it's my party, right?

@bornfromanegg - sounds like it's your wife's party. But go ahead anyway and let us know how it works out.

@BriseFlots That's exactly why it's appropriate. It's a personal party, not a work event. You can choose to invite whoever you want to your personal party, same as every personal party; and there's no real reason choosing some coworkers for a party in your personal time is a workplace issue. There could be social implications, just like every interaction with people, but from a workplace perspective, the party invitations alone are perfectly acceptable.

@JMac Yes, you can invite whoever you want. But that doesn’t mean that those choices are therefore appropriate. Which is what this answer is suggesting.

@bornfromanegg As far as workplace matters are concerned, it is. It's a personal party in your personal time, you have no obligation to invite every co-worker. Could it lead to other issues - maybe, but it's not inappropriate from a workplace perspective. It's inviting people you like spending time with to do something in your free time. Your workplace does not dictate who you can invite to personal parties, therefore from a workplace perspective this is not inappropriate.

@JMac Well perhaps this should have been expounded in the answer. As it is, it appears to be presenting it as a general truth, which it isn’t.

@bornfromanegg There's not really much worth adding. This is an answer on the workplace SE, so it addresses the question from the workplace perspective. You can overcomplicate it all you want, but this simple answer does address the question. In the context of the workplace (i.e. what every answer on this site should focus on) there's no real reason it's not appropriate. Adding more just makes the key point muddier.

@JMac Singleing out person in the workplace and actively excluding them from social events outside of work may or may not be spinned into moral harassment / discrimination by lawyers. An appropriate way to deal with this could be to invite people in smaller groups (say invite 4 persons twice) so that the person is still excluded from the parties but is not singled out.

@BriseFlots I don't see why the size of groups being invited is relevant. You're inviting the people as individuals, not as "groups". That seems like a really odd way to do it. It's one thing to tell the coworker "I've invited everyone except you to my party this weekend" and another to just invite coworkers that you want at your party to your party without inviting the ones you don't like. I don't see why it makes any real difference that it's 1 coworker not invited compared to 5. You're inviting the people as people you want at your party, not as a group of coworkers.

@bornfromanegg - you should write an Answer, expressing what you think is inappropriate, why, and what you would suggest that the OP do in this case. It might make for some nice balance.

I don't know why this question has so many upvotes. It literally doesn't answer the question. The tags have relationships and colleagues and the op is asking if it's appropriate to exclude a a colleague. This answer just responds "Do as you please." without an consideration of fallout, how to navigate the awkwardness or anything else. It's a strange "answer" to be upvoted so highly without really answering any of the CIRCUMSTANCES surrounding the decision.

This "answer" fails to address any concerns one may have, and is pretty useless.

It's a bad answer. In most situations, inviting all but one team members would actually be unacceptable and most employers would have something against it and for very good reasons. It would also be an asshole thing to do. OP's situation is very specific of course and its characteristics make it somewhat of an exception. The answer totally neglects that.

@terdon whoops, fixed. I guess you won't be inviting I to any of your parties

@Kevin me shall not! And me will sit there in a corner grumbling about prescriptivism without you!.

+1. This answer needs no consideration of anything. Your personal safety and happiness come first. I cannot comprehend how so many people feel like your job is so important that you'd rather be forced to hang out with your own sexual harasser.

@ShinEmperor Please explain to me how any of those "CIRCUMSTANCES" compare to the OP's personal safety or happiness? If my house is on fire, do you think I'm going to look out each window first and determine exactly what hazards I'll be exposed to if I leave?