In Lenianastasia Shanahan V Roots Health Food (ADJ – 00054550) the Complainant claimed that she experienced sexual harassment in her employment with ‘Roots’ under section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 – 2015.
Facts: The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in March 2024 as a server/assistant production. She worked for 16 weeks until her resignation in July 2024. The Complainant claimed that during this period she was subject to persistent unwanted conduct by a male colleague (“MR”) including sexualised comments, repeated requests to go out with him and remarks on her appearance.
The Complainant said that she did not report these incidents during her employment due to fear and uncertainty, alleging that she was not made aware of any procedure or policy and concern about the owner’s close relationship with the perpetrator.
The Respondent stated that while the Complainant wasn’t aware there was a harassment policy in place that their policy was stored under the till in the shop. Once the Respondent was notified of the complaint, they commenced an investigation but stated there was not enough evidence to corroborate the allegations and therefore no prima facie case of discrimination was made. The Respondent also expressed that once they were notified of the complaint the Respondent took reasonably practicable steps for the size and structure of the business to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.
Decision: The Adjudicator, Pat Brady, upheld the Complainant’s claim that she was discriminated on the grounds of gender involving sexual harassment in the workplace.
He found that there was no clear anti-harassment or dignity at work policy in place before the harassment occurred, nor was there any other preventative measures in place. The Adjudicator held that steps taken by the Respondent subsequent to the alleged breaches of the Act do not provide a defence.
The Adjudicator also found the Respondent’s statement that “there was not enough evidence to corroborate the Complainants allegations, and therefore no prima facie case of discrimination established” to be an ‘erroneous misunderstanding of the law’. He stated that it is the duty of an investigator to reach conclusions and that the absence of corroboration is not determinative.
The Adjudicator held that the Complainant had established a clear prima facie case, and the investigator provided no explanation as to why he could not reach any conclusion. However, with fairness to the investigator, the refusal of the Complainant to engage with the investigation was deemed unhelpful. He also referenced the timeframe in which the Complainant submitted her complaint. While he accepts that the Complainant was not aware of any policy in place, he finds this explanation not convincing, and that despite a series of incidents from April to July, she did not think to mention any aspect to her employers to whom, according to them she had a good working relationship.
The Complainant’s refusal to attend for interview along with her withdrawal from the process was regarded as ‘not acceptable’ and was taken into account by the Adjudicator in making his award of compensation. The claim was well founded, but the Complainant was only awarded €5,000 due to her delay in raising her complaint with her employer and her refusal to engage in their internal process.
Takeaway for Employers: This decision illustrates that it is not sufficient to have a Bullying and Harassment Policy in place as a defence for a claim of sexual harassment or discrimination. The employer needs to be able to prove communication and training to the staff, regardless of the size of the business.
The Adjudicator clarifies the burden of proof in relation to internal investigations of harassment and the subjective element of it. He also confirmed that the lack of corroborating evidence in such investigations should not be determinative.
It is interesting that the Adjudicator was so critical of the Complainant not raising the issue sooner with the Respondent and taking this into account in the amount of compensation awarded.
Link – https://workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2025/july/adj-00054550.html
Authors – Abigail Ansell and Anne O’Connell
31st July 2025
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.