Ms. O' N (represented by Shea Cullen, Solicitors) -v- An Insurance Company (represented by its Group Legal Advisers)
1. CLAIM
1.1 The case concerns a claim by a female employee that her employer discriminated against her on the gender ground in terms of section 6(2)(a) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 in contravention of section 23 of the Act in relation to her conditions of employment.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The complainant claims that she was sexually harassed by another employee on a night out with the Sports and Social Club of the respondent. The harassment occurred in a night club after a pub quiz which took place earlier in the evening had ended. The complainant submits that at her induction training she was encouraged to become a member of the Social Club and that the Social Club is heavily sponsored by the respondent. She claims that the harassment took place in the course of her work. The respondent did not deny that the complainant was sexually harassed but denied that the harassment constituted discrimination by it as the harassment did not occur in the workplace or in the course of the complainant's employment.
2.2 The complainant referred a complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998 to the Director of Equality Investigations on 26 March 2003. On 16 December 2003, in accordance with her powers under section 75 of that Act, the Director delegated the case to Mary Rogerson, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of the Act. A submission was received from the complainant on 26 January 2004 and from the respondent on 2 April 2004. A joint hearing of the claim was held on 21 July 2004.
3. SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINANT'S WRITTEN SUBMISSION
3.1 The complainant was employed by the respondent from April 2002 to November 2002 as a Customer Services Assistant. On the night of 21 November 2002, the complainant was in attendance at a licensed premises situated in Dublin for the purpose of engaging in a pub quiz. The said quiz was work related as it was organised by the Sports and Social Club of the respondent. At all material times, the complainant was actively encouraged by the respondent to become a member of the club and to partake in activities run by it.
3.2 Throughout the course of the evening, a fellow employee of the complainant, Mr. C, sexually harassed her in that he continuously stared and leered at her in a sexually suggestive manner. The complainant complained to a fellow employee, namely Mr. F about the behaviour from the outset of the evening. However, no remedial action was taken. Eventually, Mr. C came up behind the complainant and grabbed her breast violently.
3.3 Section 23(1) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 provides, inter alia that:
"If, at a place where A is employed (in this section referred to as "the workplace", or otherwise in the course of A's employment, B sexually harasses A and .....
(a) A and B are both employed at that place by the same employer....
then, for the purposes of this Act, the sexual harassment constitutes discrimination by A's employer, on the gender ground, in relation to A's conditions of employment."
Section 23(3) provides, inter alia, that:
"For the purposes of this Act .... any act of physical intimacy by B towards A .. shall constitute sexual harassment of A by B if the act .... is unwelcome to A and could reasonably be regarded as sexually, or otherwise on the gender ground, offensive, humiliating or intimidating to A."
Section 15 of the Act deals with the vicarious liability of an employer.
3.4 The complainant contends that the incident of 21 November 2002 constituted sexual harassment of the complainant and as such, discrimination contrary to the provisions of the Act. She also contends that the respondent, their servants or agents, failed to take any action at the outset of the evening in question when the complainant complained about Mr. C. Instead, the respondent allowed Mr. C to continually harass the complainant in a sexual manner throughout the entire course of the evening and allowed the situation to escalate to a sexual assault on the complainant.
3.5 The respondent must be held liable for the acts of its employees in view of section 15(1) of the Act. There was a complete absence of:
(i) any code of conduct on sexual harassment;
(ii) any training or other guidance for staff and/or management in particular for senior employees attending such events, in relation to the correct steps to take once a situation arose such as the complainant found herself in;
(iii) any supervision or adequate supervision at such events;
(iv) any set of procedures regarding complaints.
There is no basis for the respondent to plead a defence under section 15(3) of the Act
and the complainant seeks redress from the Tribunal.
4. SUMMARY OF THE RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSION
4.1 The complainant was employed by the respondent as a Call Centre Agent from 2 April 2002. The complainant's employment was initially on a part-time basis and subsequently, she moved to full-time work with effect from 20 May 2002. By letter dated 29 October 2002, the complainant tendered her resignation to the respondent. The incident which is the subject of the complainant's claim took place during the notice period which was due to expire on 28 November 2002.
4.2 It is accepted by the respondent that a pub quiz organised by the Sports and Social Club of the respondent took place on 21 November 2002 at which the complainant was in attendance. The Sports and Social Club is an organisation of staff of the respondent which organises social events for staff. The club is controlled and run by its members. The respondent does not control the Sports and Social Club nor at any stage did the respondent actively encourage the complainant to become a member of the club or to partake in activities run by the club. The committee and members of the club directed how and when the Sports and Social Club conducted social events and were responsible for enlisting members. The Sports and Social Club is funded by employees with occasional contributions towards specific events being paid by the respondent. The pub quiz was a social event and not related to the employees' work for the respondent.
4.3 The pub quiz took place within a hotel which is not the complainant's workplace nor did it arise in the course of the complainant's employment. The incident the subject of the complainant's claim took place after the pub quiz had been concluded when some of the participants left the licensed premises in which the quiz had taken place and attended at the nightclub of the hotel. The complainant has alleged that throughout the course of the evening, Mr. C continuously stared and leered at her in a sexually suggestive manner. Mr. C has accepted that an incident of inappropriate behaviour took place in the night club. However, his recollection is that he did not attend the pub quiz and only attended at the nightclub after the quiz had taken place.
4.4 The complainant alleges that she complained to Mr. F from the outset of the evening. Mr. F is not a manager of the respondent. His recollection is that the first and only reference to Mr. C was made to him in the nightclub after the pub quiz had concluded. Mr. F does not recall seeing Mr. C in the licensed premises at the pub quiz. The complainant's sole reference to Mr. F regarding Mr. C was to the effect that Mr. C was "annoying" and was "very drunk". Mr. F was of the view that this was said to him more by way of comment than complaint. The comment was interpreted by Mr. F as an informal request to a colleague rather than a formal approach. Mr. F's response to the comment was that within 5 minutes of the comment, he suggested to Mr. C that Mr. C should leave the complainant alone as he was making her feel uncomfortable. Mr. F did not witness the incident which is the subject matter of the claim. In the immediate aftermath of the incident when Mr. F was advised that an incident had taken place involving the complainant and Mr. C, Mr. F immediately asked Mr. C to leave the premises and he subsequently did.
4.5 The complainant was on annual leave on the day following the incident on 21 November. The complainant then took uncertified sick leave from 25 November 2002 and was on uncertified sick leave until the expiry of her notice on 28 November 2002. The complainant makes no reference in her claim to the complaint she made to management. The complainant requested a meeting with Mr. T who is the Operations Director of the respondent and a member of senior management. The meeting took place on 28 November 2002 on the day that the complainant's notice was due to expire and whilst she was on uncertified sick leave. At that meeting, in addition to two complaints against other employees, the complainant stated that Mr. C had "fondled" her breast on 21 November 2002. Mr. T indicated to the complainant that he would send her a copy of the respondent's group Policy on Harassment and Bullying. He requested that she read the policy and confirm how she wished to progress the matter.
4.6 A letter dated 28 November 2002 enclosed a copy of the harassment and bullying policy. The policy makes provision for non-formal action for dealing with complaints. The complainant again met Mr. T on 16 December 2002. At that meeting, the complainant having considered her position indicated that she did not want to make a formal complaint but requested that (a) a written apology from Mr. C be delivered to her, (b) a note to be placed on Mr. C's file and (c) that the complainant be informed if any similar complaint arose in relation to Mr. C and in such event she would wish to revive her complaint. She indicated that if these steps were taken, they could be regarded as a resolution of the matter.
4.7 Mr. T explained to the complainant that in accordance with the non-formal procedures under the respondent's group policy, he would meet with Mr. C and inform him of what the complainant had alleged had occurred. Mr. T explained that if Mr. C accepted that the allegations were true, Mr. T would request a written apology, state that a note would be placed on Mr. C's file and explain to Mr. C the potential disciplinary consequences should the issue arise again. In accordance with the nonformal procedure, Mr. T met Mr. C and put the complainant's allegation to him. Mr. C immediately accepted that an incident of inappropriate nature had taken place. The allegation put to Mr. C was that he "fondled" the complainant's breast. The complainant's request for information from the respondent in accordance with the statutory procedure refers to Mr. C "coming up to the Complainant from behind and grabbing her breast." Her written submission to the Tribunal subsequently, refers to Mr. C grabbing her breast "violently". Management's response to the complainant's complaint was in the context of specific allegations made by her which did not include any reference to violence and an allegation of violence was not put to Mr. C at the time. In addition, it was neither put to Mr.C that he came up to the complainant from behind nor that he grabbed her breast. Furthermore, the respondent was unaware at the time the complaint to management was made that the complainant had involved Mr. F at any stage during the evening in question as the complainant did not relate the information to Mr. T. The respondent only became aware of Mr. F's involvement in the context of the within claim. No comment or complaint appears to have been made to any member of the Sports and Social Committee of the respondent present on the evening in question.
4.8 Unsuccessful attempts were made by Mr. T by telephone to arrange a further meeting with the complainant. By letter dated 19 December 2002, the complainant advised that she would not attend any meeting as she wished to take legal advice. By letter dated 23 December 2002, the respondent advised the complainant of the steps which had been taken in relation to her complaint. The complainant was advised that Mr. C had accepted the incident as related by her at that time and a written apology from him was enclosed. The complainant was requested to clarify her position in relation to the complaint. No response was received to the letter. A note was also placed on Mr. C's file as requested.
4.9 Section 23(3) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 defines sexual harassment. Section 23(1) provides that sexual harassment which occurs in the workplace or otherwise in the course of the employee's employment constitutes discrimination. The respondent contends that this matter does not fall to be dealt with under section 23(1) of the Act which relates to sexual harassment which takes place in the workplace or otherwise in the course of employment. It is not pleaded by the complainant nor is it the case that the licensed premises or the nightclub was the workplace of the complainant. It is the respondent's case that the complainant did not attend the pub quiz in the course of her employment. Further, it is the respondent's case that the complainant did not attend the nightclub in the course of her employment.
4.10 It is the respondent's case that this matter falls more appropriately to be dealt with under section 23(2) of the Act which provides that where harassment takes place outside the workplace or the course of the employee's employment, the employer's liability relates to difference in treatment in the workplace or otherwise in the course of the employee's employment by reason of the complainant's rejection or acceptance of the harassment. Section 23(5) provides a defence where the employer can prove that it took such steps as are reasonably practicable to prevent the complainant being treated differently in the workplace or otherwise in the course of the complainant's employment and if and so far as any such treatment has occurred to reverse the effects of it. It is the respondent's case that it took such steps as were reasonably practical. The respondent has a harassment and bullying policy which also provides for sexual harassment. It is denied that there is a complete absence of any code of conduct on sexual harassment or training of employees or procedures regarding complaints.
4.11 The respondent's position is as follows:
(i) The incident of 21 November 2002 was not discrimination for which the respondent was liable.
(ii) The respondent does not accept that there was a failure on the part of its servants or agents to take any action on receipt of the complaint.
(iii) At all times, the respondent dealt with the complainant's complaint based on the circumstances put forward by the complainant.
(iv) It is not accepted that the respondent has a liability to the complainant under section 15(1) of the Act and the respondent relies on section 15(3) of the Act.
(v) It is not accepted that the respondent has a liability to the complainant under section 23(1) or section 23(2) of the Act and the respondent relies on section 23(5) of the Act.
5. CONCLUSIONS OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER
5.1 In this case, the complainant alleges that the respondent directly discriminated against her on the gender ground in relation to her conditions of employment. I will consider whether the respondent directly discriminated against the complainant on the gender ground in terms of section 6(2)(a) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and in contravention of sections 8 and 23 of the Act. In making my Decision in this case, I have taken into account all of the evidence, both written and oral, submitted to me by the parties
Issue whether sexual harassment occurred
5.2 I must firstly consider whether the complainant has established that she was sexually harassed. Section 23(3) (where A and B represent two persons of the opposite sex) provides:
'For the purposes of this Act -
(a) any act of physical intimacy by B towards A,
(b) any request by B for sexual favours from A, or
(c) any other act or conduct of B (including, without prejudice to the generality, spoken words, gestures or the production, display or circulation of written words, pictures or other material), shall constitute sexual harassment of A by B if the act, request or conduct is unwelcome to A and could reasonably be regarded as sexually, or otherwise on the gender ground, offensive, humiliating or intimidating to A.'
The complainant alleges that she was sexually harassed in that Mr. C, a fellow employee, grabbed her breast in a night club whilst she was on a night out with the Social Club. In the course of the respondent's investigation following the complainant's complaint to the respondent, Mr. C accepted that an incident of inappropriate behaviour took place towards the complainant in a night club. I find that the behaviour of Mr. C amounted to sexual harassment as it was unwelcome to the complainant and could reasonably be regarded as sexually, or otherwise on the gender ground, offensive, humiliating or intimidating to her. The complainant has therefore established that she was sexually harassed.
5.3 The respondent submits that it investigated a complaint that Mr. C had "fondled" the complainant's breast. It submits that it did not investigate a claim of violent behaviour towards the complainant. The complainant's submission to this forum states that Mr. C "grabbed her breast, violently ". At the hearing, the complainant submitted that 'grabbed' was the word she used in her discussions with Mr. T on 28 November 2002. She did not use the word 'fondled' and may or may not have used the word 'violently' and she could not be certain. Mr. T said that he was not quoting her in relation to their discussions but that he did not pick up any sense of violence from their conversation. I am therefore proceeding on the basis that the complainant reported to Mr. T that Mr. C "grabbed" her breast.
Discrimination by the employer in accordance with section 23(1) of the Act
5.4 I must now look at whether the sexual harassment constituted discrimination by the complainant's employer in accordance with section 23(1) or (2) of the Act in relation to the complainant's conditions of employment. Section 18(1) provides that for the purposes of Part III of the Act dealing with equality between men and women, A and B represent two persons of the opposite sex so that, where A is a woman, B is a man and vice versa. Section 23(1) provides:
"If, at a place where A is employed (in this section referred to as "the workplace"), or otherwise in the course of A's employment, B sexually harasses A and either -
(a) A and B are both employed at that place or by the same employer,
(b) B is A's employer, or
(c) B is a client, customer or other business contact of A's employer and the circumstances of the harassment are such that A's employer ought reasonably to have taken steps to prevent it,
then, for the purposes of this Act, the sexual harassment constitutes discrimination by A's employer, on the gender ground, in relation to A's conditions of employment."
Section 23(1) therefore provides that sexual harassment which occurs in the workplace or otherwise in the course of employment constitutes discrimination by the employer on the gender ground in relation to the employee's conditions of employment.
5.5 In this particular case, the complainant was on a night out with a social club which consisted of a pub quiz and attendance at a nightclub on the same premises. The harassment occurred in the night club and did not, therefore, occur in the workplace. The complainant submits that the harassment occurred in the course of her employment. She submitted that she was told about the Social Club at her induction training and also told that she should join. A member of the committee of the Social Club (who was also the complainant's brother) stated that there were six committee members and he was asked by someone else to become a committee member. The Club has approximately 425 members (total staff of respondent approximately 1400) who pay €5 per month. The respondent matches the amount received from members each month and pays the corresponding amount to the Club on a quarterly basis. The Social Club also seeks additional funding from the respondent from time to time. There was a free bar both in the pub when the quiz was taking place and subsequently in the night club. The complainant submits that the sexual harassment occurred in the course of her employment as the Sports and Social Club is an "umbrella group" of the respondent which is heavily sponsored by the respondent. She submitted that significant amounts of alcohol were provided free on the night and someone from the respondent organisation should have been there in a supervisory capacity. She submits that the committee of the Club received no instructions on how to carry out its activities and it was left to its own devices. She further submits that on the night, nothing was done about Mr. C's behaviour from the time when she went to the night club where initially he was staring and leering at her and the situation was permitted to escalate. The respondent denies that the complainant was acting in the course of her employment on the evening in question.
5.6 In relation to section 23(1) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, I must consider whether the complainant as opposed to Mr. C was acting in the course of her employment when the harassment occurred. The respondent did not dispute that the Social Club was mentioned to the complainant at her induction training. However, there is no compulsion on anyone to join the Club and I note that approximately less than one third of the employees are members. The Social Club was not set up by the respondent and has no connection with it other than its membership comprises employees of the respondent and it provides funding to it. Whilst it is not in question that the respondent provides considerable sponsorship to the Social Club, I do not consider that financial sponsorship by an employer at a social event where sexual harassment occurs is sufficient in itself and in the absence of other factors to bring an act of sexual harassment within the course of employment of a potential complainant. The complainant was employed as a Call Centre Agent in the Customer Desk Department of the respondent. The complainant did not attend the night club for the purposes of or in furtherance of her work and I therefore find that she was not sexually harassed in the course of her employment. The question of whether the sexual harassment constitutes discrimination by the complainant's employer does not therefore fall to be dealt with under section 23(1) of the Employment Equality Act,
1998.
Discrimination by the employer in accordance with section 23(2) of the Act
5.7 I will therefore consider whether the sexual harassment constituted discrimination within the meaning of section 23(2) of the Act which provides:
"Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) in its application in relation to the workplace and the course of A's employment, if, in a case where one of the conditions in paragraphs (a) to ( c) of that subsection is fulfilled -
(a) B sexually harasses A, whether or not in the workplace or in the course of A's employment, and
(b) A is treated differently in the workplace or otherwise in the course of A's employment by reason of A's rejection or acceptance of the sexual harassment or it could reasonably be anticipated that A would be so treated,
then, for the purposes of this Act, the sexual harassment constitutes discrimination by A's employer, on the gender ground, in relation to A's conditions of employment."
5.8 In accordance with section 23(2), it is irrelevant whether the harassment occurred in the workplace or in the course of employment. However, it constitutes discrimination by the victim's employer only where the complainant is treated differently in the workplace or otherwise in the course of her employment by reason of her rejection or acceptance of the sexual harassment or it could reasonably be anticipated that the victim would be so treated. In this particular case, in accordance with section 23(2), subsection (a) of section 23(1) is fulfilled in that the complainant and Mr. C are both employed by the same employer. I have found at paragraph 5.6 above that the harassment did not occur in the workplace or otherwise in the course of the complainant's employment. On the day after the incident, Friday, 22 November 2002, the complainant was on annual leave and was on uncertified sick leave until the day that she was due to cease working with the respondent on 28 November 2002. In the instant case, the complainant was not treated differently in the workplace or otherwise in the course of her employment by reason of her acceptance or rejection of the harassment.
5.9 In accordance with section 23(2)(b) of the Act, I must also consider whether it could reasonably be anticipated that the complainant would be so treated. On the night of the incident, the complainant was assisted by one of her colleagues, Mr. F (who was a supervisor, although not the complainant's supervisor and not a member of management), firstly in that he initially asked Mr. C to leave the complainant alone and secondly in that he asked Mr. C to leave the night club after the incident in which the complainant's breast was grabbed. In considering whether the complainant might be treated differently in the workplace, I note that the respondent had a policy which dealt with harassment including sexual harassment. When the complainant made a verbal complaint to management subsequently, her complaint was investigated in accordance with the respondent's informal procedure as set out in its Harassment and Bullying Policy. The "Non Formal Procedure" provides that:
"The Manager will approach the alleged perpetrator, outlining the nature of the complaint and the impact on the complainant. Where the alleged perpetrator accepts the nature of the complaint, resolution of the problem may take place in a low-key manner. The Manager will agree with the individual how her/his behaviour should be modified. However, where the alleged perpetrator disputes the content of the complaint, a formal investigation may be necessary to resolve the issue."
5.10 The "Formal Procedure" provides that "A formal investigation will take place where
- The seriousness of the issue, in the view of Management requires it or
- Where, following the non-formal procedures, there are conflicting versions of the alleged harassment/bullying from the complainant and the alleged harasser.
The complainant is asked to submit a formal complaint in writing within seven working days."
The policy also provides that the alleged perpetrator is asked for a written response within seven days and that the outcome of the investigation will be conveyed to both parties. It also provides for the taking of disciplinary action against the perpetrator if the complaint is substantiated.
5.11 The complainant initially met with Mr. T on 28 November 2002 following her telephone request to meet with the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent who was unavailable. At that meeting, she made her complaint in respect of the events of 21 November. As indicated to the complainant by Mr. T at that meeting, a copy of the respondent's group policy on Harassment and Bullying was forwarded to her. The letter dated 28 November 2002 states "Please read through these procedures carefully and call me next week to discuss same." At the hearing, the complainant stated that she had previously received a copy of the policy either with her contract or handed separately to her. The complainant met Mr. T over two and a half weeks later on 16 December 2002. The respondent submitted that at the meeting on 16 December 2002 with Mr. T, the complainant indicated that she did not wish to make a formal complaint but requested a written apology from Mr. C, a note to be placed on Mr. C's file and to be informed if any similar complaint arose in respect of Mr. C. At the hearing of the claim, the complainant stated that she did not consider making a complaint in writing and it appears that she was not asked to do so by the respondent. A written apology to the complainant was provided by Mr. C and forwarded by the respondent with a letter dated 23 December 2002. A copy of the apology and the respondent's letter were placed on Mr. C's personnel file.
5.12 Whilst it could be argued that the respondent should have instituted a formal investigation in line with its Harassment and Bullying Policy as the seriousness of the issue required it, the complainant did not dispute the respondent's statement that at the meeting on 16 December 2002, she stated that she did not want to make a formal complaint. It could therefore be argued that the respondent was constrained somewhat by the complainant's decision that she did not want to make a formal complaint and she did at the time of the meeting on 16 December seem clear in her mind in relation to the three specific actions that she wanted the respondent to take. Her decision in relation to the actions she wanted the respondent to take was some two and a half weeks after her initial meeting with Mr. T and over three and a half weeks after the incident of harassment took place. The complainant was therefore afforded sufficient opportunity to consider the matter of how she wanted to progress the complaint and she did not submit that the respondent suggested the actions in question to her. In circumstances such as those in issue, it could be considered to be prudent for a person harassed to take independent advice, legal or otherwise and I note that the complainant indicated subsequently by letter dated 19 December 2002, that she intended to take legal advice. The respondent by letter dated 23 December 2002 stated:
"I would appreciate if you would clarify your position in relation to this complaint. I agreed the above basis of resolution with you last Monday and I spoke to him [Mr. C] in good faith. I will need to inform him if you wish to take this complaint further either internally on a more formal basis or by taking legal proceedings." That letter recognises the possibility of the complainant proceeding the formal internal route and it does not appear to rule it out as an option for her.
5.13 On the night in question, a colleague of the complainant's attempted to deal with the matter in a helpful manner. Once the complainant made her complaint to management subsequently, the respondent treated the matter seriously and made every effort to investigate the matter and dealt with it within the confines of the non-formal procedure selected by the complainant. A copy of Mr. C's apology and the respondent's covering letter which accompanied the apology were placed on his file. Taking into account the actions of the colleague in question and the actions of management, on the balance of probability, I do not consider that it could reasonably be anticipated that the complainant would be treated differently in the workplace or otherwise in the course of her employment by reason of her rejection of Mr. C's behaviour. I therefore find that the sexual harassment does not constitute discrimination by the complainant's employer on the gender ground in
relation to her conditions of employment in terms of section 23(2) of the Act.
5.14 As I have not found that the sexual harassment constituted discrimination by the complainant's employer within the meaning of section 23(1) or 23(2) of the Act, it is not necessary for me to proceed to consider the issues of vicarious liability of the respondent for the actions of Mr. C and the defences available to it. I must point out that this decision must not be interpreted as holding that sexual harassment which occurs outside the workplace may never amount to discrimination by an employer. However, sexual harassment occurring outside the workplace amounts to discrimination by an employer under the Employment Equality Act, 1998 only in certain circumstances in accordance with section 23(2) of the Act.
Equality Policy
5.15 The policy submitted by the respondent deals with harassment, sexual harassment and bullying. I am not satisfied as to the comprehensiveness of the document taking into account the provisions of the Employment Equality Act (Code of Practice)(Harassment) Order 2002 S.I. No. 78 of 2002. Chapter 4 of the Code deals with the preparation of a policy on harassment and sexual harassment and details the contents of such a policy. I note that it states in relation to the definition section of a policy that it, inter alia, should state that the protection extends "beyond the workplace to conferences and training and may extend to work-related social events". In accordance with section 79(6) of the Act, I cannot make an order in relation to the drafting of a comprehensive Equality Policy as I have not found in favour of the complainant. However, I recommend that the respondent draft an Equality Policy which takes into account the provisions of the Code of Practice.
6. DECISION
6.1 Based on the foregoing, I find that the complainant was sexually harassed within the meaning of section 23(3) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. I also find that the sexual harassment did not constitute discrimination by the complainant's employer on the gender ground in relation to her conditions of employment within the meaning of section 23(1) or 23(2) of the Act.
_________________
Mary Rogerson
Equality Officer
1 September 2004