In Maria Puisor v Automatic Amusements Ltd (EDA2632), the Labour Court overturned the Workplace Relations Commission’s (“WRC”) decision (ADJ-00048789) which had found that the Complainant had not established a prima facie case of discrimination. The Labour Court held that the Complainant had been subjected to discriminatory treatment on the gender ground as a result of harassment by male customers in the workplace. The Adjudication Officer’s decision was set aside, and the Complainant was awarded €20,000 in compensation.
Facts:
The Complainant appears to have been employed as a croupier and worked at the Respondent casino from 29 September 2016 until she resigned on 26 November 2023. She alleged that during her employment, she was treated less favourably compared to the male employees and was subject to physical and verbal abuse from customers of the casino and afforded little protection from management.
The Complainant gave evidence in respect of a number of such incidents. The Respondent challenged the Complainant’s evidence in respect of some of the incidents and also challenged the Complainant’s evidence in respect of the alleged inadequacy of the Respondent’s responses. However, no witness testimony was offered by the Respondent in support of its position. Furthermore, the Labour Court noted that there was no evidence of the existence of an anti-harassment policy that had been effectively communicated to employees at the relevant time.
In addition to challenging the substance of the Complainant’s claims the Respondent also argued that her claim was out of time and that it was not properly before the Labour Court because in the Complainant’s original complaint to the WRC, the complaint identified was on the ground of “Race” and the claim in relation to “Gender” was only submitted orally on the day of the Hearing when the claim of discrimination on the ground of Race was withdrawn.
Another point argued by the Respondent was that there was no evidence that the customer’s behaviour was connected to or because of her gender.
Decision:
The Labour Court rejected the Respondent’s argument that the Complainant’s claim was not properly before it because the original complaint lodged with the WRC related to alleged discrimination on the grounds of ‘Race’. The Labour Court emphasised that it derives its jurisdiction on appeal from an Adjudication Officer’s decision, hears the matter on a de novo basis, and has no remit to examine any findings or decisions made by the Adjudication Officer.
The Respondent’s argument that the Complainant’s claim was out of time also failed. The Labour Court determined there was an incident within the six month cognisable period and also referenced the fact that if one act of discrimination is found to have occurred within the six-month cognisable period, it is open to the Court to consider if acts prior to the cognisable period are part of a continuum of discriminatory behaviour, which might, in such circumstances, be regarded as breaches of the Acts.
The act of discrimination alleged which fell within the relevant six-month period involved an incident with a customer where the Complainant pushed winnings towards the wrong customer. The winning customer allegedly became “very angry and stood up, pushing his chair and raising his hand”.
In respect of that incident, the Labour Court referred to the decision in Nail Zone Ltd v A Worker EDA1023 where it set out the statutory characteristics of harassment which is “that the conduct is (a) unwanted and (b) that it has either the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person”.
The Labour Court found the Complainant to be a credible witness and accepted her evidence that she was very scared during the incident, which involved physically threatening and abusive behaviour by a male customer. The Court was also satisfied that this treatment was unwanted by the Complainant and had the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive work environment.
It was stressed by the Labour Court that the Act does not apply to a generalised harassment claim that has no link to the discriminatory grounds therefore the behaviour of the customer would only constitute harassment if that treatment was related to the Complainant’s gender.
However, the Court also remarked that to establish a prima facie case, the Complainant does not have to prove that discrimination on the gender ground occurred, only that it is a likely explanation for the facts presented.
Having considered the uncontested evidence regarding the hostile and aggressive work environment, the Court concluded that the customer’s behaviour directed towards her was because she was a woman and he would not have acted in such a way with a male employee of the Respondent.
Accordingly, the Court found that the Complainant had established a prima facie case that she was subjected to discriminatory treatment because of her gender due to the harassment in the workplace.
The Respondent presented no evidence to refute that the Complainant worked in a hostile and aggressive environment. The Court found the Complainant to be a credible witness.
Notably, the Court confirmed that “An employer can avoid liability for the harassment of an employee in the course of employment, by making out a defence provided for at Section 14(2), if it can establish that it took reasonably practicable steps to prevent the harassment, or where harassment took place, to prevent the victim from being treated differently and to reverse its effects”. The Complainant’s evidence was that the Respondent took little to no action to protect her safety. There was also no evidence of the existence of an anti-harassment policy that had been effectively communicated to employees during the relevant period.
The Labour Court found that the Complainant was subjected to harassment on the gender ground and the fact that the perpetrators were customers was irrelevant since they were on the Respondent’s premises and the Respondent had a duty to protect workers from discriminatory treatment during the course of their employment.
The Labour Court determined that the Respondent had failed to adequately protect the Complainant and was therefore liable for the discriminatory treatment suffered by her. The Respondent was directed by the Court to pay the Complainant €20,000 in compensation.
Takeaway for Employers:
This decision reinforces that employers can be liable where employees are subjected to discriminatory harassment by customers or other third parties in the workplace, unless the employer can show that it took reasonably practicable steps to prevent and address the conduct.
Employers should respond promptly to complaints of harassment, take reasonable and effective action to protect employees, and ensure that any alleged harassment is properly investigated and addressed.
They should also have a clear anti-harassment policy in place and ensure that it is properly communicated to all employees. To rely on the statutory defence under Section 14(2), an employer must be able to demonstrate that it took reasonably practicable steps to prevent harassment and, where harassment occurred, that it acted effectively to address the conduct and reverse its effects.
The Labour Court also reiterated that the Employment Equality Acts do not apply to general workplace bullying or harassment unless the conduct is linked to a discriminatory ground.
Link:
WRC Decision
https://workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2025/january/adj-00048789.html
Labour Court Decision
https://workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2026/july/eda2632.html
Authors– Laura Killelea and Erlan Li
15th September 2026
If you found this article useful you might like our employment law newsletter. We write monthly articles, like this, covering interesting cases, decisions, news and developments in Ireland.