In A Female Complainant v The Health Service Executive (ADJ-00055810), the Workplace Relations Commission (the “WRC”) found that the Complainant was discriminated against by her employer on the grounds of gender. The Adjudicator, Conor Stokes, found that the Complainant was sexually harrassed by a senior colleague for over a year, and that the Respondent did not react robustly enough in order to protect the Complainant. The Adjudicator awarded the Complainant 52 weeks’ remuneration (€86,717) for the effects of the discrimination.
Facts: The Complainant is a pharmacist working in a HSE hospital setting. The Complainant lodged an employment equality claim with the WRC on 10th December 2024 alleging gender discrimination and sexual harassment.
The Complainant described a series of incidents in which she was sexually harassed by a senior male pharmacist, the first of which took place in May 2023. Further incidents occurred, culminating in an incident in June 2024 during which the senior pharmacist showed her a picture of naked male genitalia while they were along in the pharmacy office together. The Complainant lodged a complaint of sexual harassment the following Monday when her line manager returned to work. The Complainant sent an email to HR in which she sought a formal investigation into seven separate incidents. The Complainant submitted that she was only interviewed more than eight months after making a complaint. She stated that the harasser continued to work in the workplace for over a year while she had to move elsewhere to try and avoid him, and she continued to encounter him in the workplace. The Complainant had to take stress leave twice during that time.
The Respondent stated that it was required to give the senior pharmacist due process and noted that he was entitled to natural justice and fairness. It referred to the investigation that was carried out and the report that was issued in respect of the complaint. The investigation found in favour of the Complainant. While the Respondent submitted that it put certain safety measures in place, it accepted that it did not do enough to protect the Complainant.
Decision: The Adjudicator found the Complainant to be credible, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, he found that all the incidents described by the Complainant took place (not just those upheld in the investigation which the senior pharmacist had admitted to). The Adjudicator found that the senior pharmacist repeatedly violated the safeguarding direction put in place by the Respondent. This was confirmed by the Respondent’s witness who confirmed that she had to speak to him repeatedly.
The Adjudicator was satisfied that the Complainant had “amply” established facts from which it could be presumed that she had been discriminated against. Accordingly, the burden shifted to the Respondent to prove the contrary.
The Respondent did not challenge the Complainant’s version of events and affirmed many of the details given by her including the timeline and how long it took to address matters while the senior pharmacist remained in place and the Complainant was moved around.
The Adjudicator found that the Respondent “wholly failed” to take steps to prevent the senior pharmacist from continuing to sexually harass the Complainant. He “repeatedly inserted himself” into the Complainant’s work environment, resulting in the Complainant taking stress-related sick leave. Up to the date of the WRC hearing, 13 months after the sexual harassment had been reported, no disciplinary action had been initiated against the senior pharmacist. The Adjudicator was critical of the relevant HSE policies and the delay, as well as the inadequacy of the safeguarding mechanisms put in place. He concluded that the Respondent did not take such steps as were reasonably practicable to safeguard the Complainant. He found that the Respondent was liable for the discrimination of the Complainant, and was unable to rely on the defence in section 15(3) of the Employment Equality Acts.
In considering the appropriate redress, the Adjudicator noted that it is important that any award should serve the purpose of dissuading a potential harasser, of persuading an employer to comply with the legislation, and should be proportionate to the infringement and breach of the Act.
The Adjudicator awarded the Complainant compensation in the amount of €86,717, equivalent to 52 weeks’ remuneration, for the effects of the discrimination in this case. Interestingly, the Adjudicator also ordered the Respondent to disregard the two periods of sick leave for work-related stress taken by the Complainant arising from the harassment for the purposes of annual and multi-annual sick leave calculation.
Takeaway for Employers: This decision is a strong reminder to employers of their obligations to employees under the Employment Equality Acts. Breaches of employment equality legislation can be very costly for organisations, as awards of compensation are made for the “effects” of the discrimination and are not dependent on loss of earnings, increasing the potential exposure for employers. Employers must ensure that they have robust policies in place that protect the rights and interests of employees who may experience harassment. It is essential that employers ensure that their policies are effectively communicated to employees and appropriate training is advisable. When complaints of harassment or discrimination are made in the workplace, employers should act without delay in order to protect the rights of all parties concerned. Legal advice is recommended in navigating this sensitive area.
Link- ADJ-00055810
28th November 2025
Authors – Jane Holian, Jenny Wakely
Anne O’Connell Solicitors
19-22 Lower Baggot Street
Dublin 2.
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.