THE EQUALITY TRIBUNAL
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS 1998-2011
Decision DEC - E2013 - 070
PARTIES
Ms A. (represented by John Scott, B.L., instructed by Howard Synott, Solicitors)
and
A retail chain (represented by IBEC)
File References: EE/2010/110
Date of Issue: 11th July 2013
Table of Contents
Claim 3
Summary of the Complainant's Written Submission 3
Summary of the Respondent's Written Submission 5
Conclusions of the Equality Officer 7
Decision 17
Keywords: S. 8 - training, conditions of employment - S. 14 - sexual harassment - S. 14(2) employer defense - S. 2 - constructive dismissal - S. 74(2) victimisation - no prima facie case
1. Claim
1.1. The case concerns a claim by Ms A. that her employer, a retail store, discriminated against her on the ground of gender contrary to Section 6(2)(a) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2008, in terms of training, and conditions of employment with regard to sexual harassment. The complainant also alleges that she has been victimised within the meaning of S. 74(2) of the Acts.
1.2. The complainant referred a complaint under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2008 to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 17 February 2010. A submission was received from the complainant on 19 November 2010. A submission was received from the respondent on 16 March 2011. On 7 June 2012, in accordance with his powers under S. 75 of the Acts, the Director delegated the case to me, Stephen Bonnlander, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of the Acts. On this date my investigation commenced. As required by Section 79(1) of the Acts and as part of my investigation, I proceeded to hold a joint hearing of the case on 29 June 2012, which was adjourned and resumed and concluded on 21 January 2013. The last piece of correspondence relating to the complaint was received on 11 July 2013.
2. Summary of the Complainant's Written Submission
2.1. The complainant states that she commenced working for the respondent in June 2008, and that from the very first day, she felt victimised when she was told by the HR manager and her supervisor that she was not supposed to speak to her mother, who was also a store employee. The complainant was 17 years of age when she commenced work for the respondent.
2.2. She further states that two named employees, both of whom had a supervisory role with her, started making inappropriate comments of a sexual nature from shortly after she commenced employment with the respondent. Examples include: "You are only letting on to be a little Virgin Mary to your mammy, we know what you really are" or "You are nothing but a little hypocrite you little Virgin Mary." When the complainant travelled to Gran Canaria with her fiancé, she was advised by her mother upon her return that the same two named employees had spread rumours that the complainant "was going over there for a shag fest and to get away from [her] precious mammy for to lose [her] virginity." The complainant states that these comments continued after she had returned to work.
2.3. On 15 January 2010, a colleague of the complainant's was transferred to another store, and "leaving drinks" were organised by the staff to mark this occasion. The complainant was present, as was one of the named staff members who had previously made inappropriate remarks to her. In the course of the evening, the behaviour of this named employee towards the complainant descended into extreme inappropriateness, starting with explicit remarks involving the mechanics of sexual intercourse, and questioning the complainant as to whether she had had intercourse with a specific, named man, followed by attempts to force the complainant's legs apart while pushing his body onto her. According to the complainant, the named employee attempted this twice, and in his second attempt, "used such force that I nearly fell off the stool". According to the complainant, the named employee also went over to another female colleague, attempted to force her legs apart and forced his head between her breasts, then looked at the complainant and said to her that "see, [named female colleague] likes it." The complainant further states that the colleagues present just laughed at this behaviour.
2.4. Eventually, the complainant found enough strength to push the named male employee off her. She states that she felt "violated, sick, stressed and scared". She states that some five minutes later, the named male employee attacked her about her work experience and said to her that she was the most hated person in the store, that she wasn't wanted and that she had a subservient attitude to a particular manager. The named male employee then poked the complainant in the head hard and aggressively. When asked to stop, he put his hand on her head and started messing with her hair.
2.5. The complainant eventually managed to get up from the stool she was sitting on and ask another male colleague for support. That male colleague escorted her outside the pub and waited with her until the complainant's sister arrived to collect her. Two days later, the complainant filed a complaint with the Gardaí about the incident, and reported the incident to her manager on 16 January 2010.
2.6. According to the complainant, the initial response from the respondent's management was that because the drinks were privately organised, they fell outside the respondent's responsibility. However, the complainant identified a policy of the respondent's which stated that even if something happened at a work function like leaving drinks, any inappropriate behaviour was unacceptable. Her manager then undertook to have the matter investigated.
2.7. The complainant states that the investigation process continued until July 2010, and that she did not feel protected during that time. Eventually, she left the respondent's employment.
3. Summary of the Respondent's Written Submission
3.1. The respondent accepts the incident of harassment on 15 January 2010 which is set out in detail in the complainant's submission, but otherwise denies discriminating against the complainant, or victimising her, as alleged or at all.
3.2. It submits that after the complainant raised her complaint in relation to that incident, an investigation was carried out, which resulted in serious disciplinary action, including demotion, taken against an employee only identified in the respondent submission as "Employee 1". When his suspension from work was lifted, he was requested to repeat the diversity training module, as were all other staff. "Employee 1" appealed the outcome of the investigation, however, the findings were upheld on appeal.
3.3. In terms of the length of the investigation process, the respondent states that it attached great importance to carrying out the investigation properly, and that the number of witnesses involved, shift patterns, and the need to ensure fair procedures for "Employee 1" meant that delays were occurring. According to the respondent, the respondent's store manager so advised the complainant, and while being sympathetic to the complainant's stress, emphasised the need to complete this investigation properly. When the complainant made an allegation that she felt unsafe in the store, an offer was made to her to move her later the same day to a different part of the store. It was also suggested to the complainant that she might avail of the respondent's absence policy if her GP felt there were issues affecting her health. On 15 February 2010, the respondent received a letter from the complainant's GP, stating that she was mentally and physically fit to work.
3.4. On 20 February 2010, the respondent's store manager met with the complainant to advise her that Employee 1 would be returning to work, but that breaks and lunches would be managed by the respondent to avoid contact between the complainant and Employee 1, where possible. The complainant then left the respondent premises later that day during her shift, and advised the respondent by letter dated 23 February 2010 that she did not feel safe working in the respondent premises. The respondent states that as the complainant did not attend work, it was not possible to discuss the progress of the investigation with her. The respondent further states that since the complainant did not send in medical certificates, her absence was effectively unauthorised.
3.5. The respondent further states that on 3 March 2010, the complainant telephoned the respondent's HR advisor to ask for assistance with a college project, and the HR advisor met with the complainant on this matter. Later, the respondent received a letter from the complainant, also dated 3 March, in which the complainant stated that "I am now in a situation where I am being forced to give up my job because I cannot continue to work with the person who molested me while not knowing if a repetition might occur."
3.6. On 10 March 2010, the complainant was advised that her complaint in respect of the pub incident had been upheld and that disciplinary action had been taken. She was further advised that her other complaint of victimisation and sexual harassment could not be substantiated, but was also advised of her right to an appeal.
3.7. By 15 April 2010, the complainant had neither lodged an appeal nor returned to work, so the respondent wrote to her, sending her another appeal form and requesting a return to work date from her. The respondent received an appeal form from the complainant on 20 April, but it did not state any grounds for the appeal. On 5 May 2010, the respondent wrote to the complainant about her return to work. The complainant was assured that the respondent would endeavour to ensure that she and Employee 1 would not be on the same shift, and if she had any concerns whatsoever, she should contact the store manager or a member of the HR team immediately.
3.8. The complainant returned to work on 19 May 2010. She filed another appeal against the respondent's investigation on 1 June 2010. Again she stated no grounds for appeal, and so it was not upheld. The respondent wrote to the complainant on 22 July to advise her of this.
3.9. On 17 July 2010, the complainant advised that she was unable to complete her shift due to her anxiety and attended the Stock and Service manager's office. The complainant was then absent on sick leave. On 9 August, in an attempt to facilitate the complainant's return to work, the respondent offered a mediation session between the complainant and Employee 1. The complainant wrote to the respondent on 11 August and advised that she did not wish to participate in mediation.
3.10. Eventually, the complainant resigned from the respondent's employment on 8 October 2010.
4. Conclusions of the Equality Officer
4.1. The issues for decision in this case are whether the complainant was discriminated against within the meaning of the Acts and whether she was victimised within the meaning of the Acts.
4.2. In evaluating the evidence before me, I must first consider whether the complainant has established a prima facie case pursuant to S. 85A of the Acts. The Labour Court has held consistently that the facts from which the occurrence of discrimination may be inferred must be of "sufficient significance" before a prima facie case is established and the burden of proof shifts to the respondent.
4.3. The complainant gave extensive evidence at the first day of the hearing of the complaint on how Mr B. [identified in the respondent's submission as "employee 1"] and Mr. C. [identified by the respondent as "employee 2"], employees of the respondent, treated her, soon after she started in the respondent's employment in August 2008. She also highlighted how young she was when she started in the respondent's employment, that it was her first employment after leaving school and that she was only 17 years old when she commenced work. Mr B. and Mr C. both had a supervisory role with the complainant. She stated that they asked her whether she had a boyfriend, whether she was a virgin, whether she was sleeping with her partner or whether she was performing oral sex. Ms A. quoted the verbatim comment: "Fellas really like blowjobs, you should give them". Mr B. and Mr C. would come to up to her either together or separately at times when business was slow and there were no customers around who could have overheard them. This started shortly after she commenced working for the respondent. Ms A. complained about their behaviour to their Manager, Mr D., which she says was a short conversation on the shop floor due to lack of time and privacy. According to Ms. A., Mr D. said he would look into the matter, but nothing ever happened.
4.4. In December of 2008, Ms A. switched to another department, not as an outcome of her complaint, but by applying for an internally advertised position. In this new role, apart from gaining experience in a different area of the respondent's business, she also got away from Mr B. and Mr. C. She made her new manager aware of her problems with them, and she did not come into contact with Mr B. afterwards until the incident of the going-away drinks in January 2010. This incident, which the respondent accepts happened and investigated, is outlined in the summary of the complainant's submission in paragraphs 2.3 to 2.5 above.
4.5. One step the respondent took in the immediate aftermath of this incident was to try and ensure that the complainant and Mr B. were on different lunch breaks. The complainant stated that she would not have been able to be in the same room as Mr B. However, one day they encountered each other in a doorway, and Mr B. hissed at her in an aggressive manner, which the complainant demonstrated in the course of her evidence. She stated that following this encounter, she went into a panic attack and collapsed in the training room with heart pains. She further stated that although she had been told by the respondent's management to bring any such incidents to the attention of her line manager in the décor department, he only stuck his fingers into his ears and said: "La, la, la", when she did so. The complainant demonstrated this, too, during her evidence. Following this incident, the complainant went on long-term sick leave, as the thought of another encounter with Mr B. distressed her too much for her to be able to report to work.
4.6. Ms A.'s mother, Mrs A., who is also in the employment of the respondent, confirmed in her evidence that Mr B. and Mr C. also came to her to make inappropriate remarks about her daughter, such as that Ms A. would return pregnant from a holiday with her fiancé. Mrs A. stated that she also complained to Mr D. and to HR, where she recalls she was called a "moaner". She said that she was not happy how the respondent handled these issues.
4.7. Mr B., in his evidence, confirmed that he was interviewed by Mr E. in relation to Ms A.s complaints. However, he denied remembering any of Mr E.s question or indeed much of the investigation. However, at a later point he stated that other witnesses were only interviewed for the pub incident, and not for his earlier behaviour, and further claimed that with regard to the pub incident, the other witness statements matched his account more than Ms A.'s.
4.8. With regard to the specific allegations against him, he denied making any of the inappropriate remarks outlined above, although he did accept that he talked about sexual relationships while at work. Mr B. stated that "nobody indicated it was wrong", and connected it to "people talking about themselves". Mr B. had been employed by the respondent since 2001, and since 2007 in the store in which he was Ms A.s supervisor. He confirmed that he supervised between 10 and 15 staff at the front-of-store. He is still employed in the same store, but has not succeeded in being promoted again after his disciplinary demotion following the pub incident. His current role is customer adviser.
4.9. Mr C. likewise denied making any remarks to Ms A. Like Mr B., he did not recall any of the circumstances of his interview. He said he was aware that Ms A. was in a relationship, but stated that she was the same age as his sister, and that he was aware of her youth. He also stated that he would give her lifts on occasion.
4.10. Mr D., who was the supervisor of Mr B. and Mr. C. at the time the alleged inappropriate remarks occurred, is a senior service manager with the respondent. He stated in evidence that he had no recollection of any conversation with Ms A. at the time the inappropriate remarks occurred in 2008, and denied that there would have been any witnesses to Mr B.'s and Mr C.'s behaviour. He stated that a complaint like Ms A.'s would not be something one would hear "every day" and that he would remember it if she had approached him about it.
4.11. Taking into account all the evidence given on this period of the complainant's employment with the respondent, including the direct evidence given by the complainant, Mr B., Mr C., and Mr D., I prefer the complainant's evidence with regard to the harassment she endured from Mr B., whereas I find the evidence with regard to Mr C. too inconclusive to find in her favour. Whether Mr D. remembers the apparently fleeting conversation the complainant had with him on the shop floor with regard to Mr B.'s harassment is of not much importance, since the complainant later brought a formal complaint against Mr B. with regard to these matters.
4.12. I therefore find that Mr B. sexually harassed Ms A. within the meaning of the Acts from the start of her employment with the respondent in the summer of 2008, then stopped when the complainant transferred to another work area. It is important to note that this transfer happened on the initiative of the complainant and was not a step taken by the respondent for her protection from Mr B. I further find that Mr B. resumed his sexual harassment of the complainant at the staff night out in January 2010, which the respondent already accepts took place. I find that these events are obviously connected by the fact that they were perpetrated upon the complainant by the same person, Mr B., and therefore form a chain of events as defined by the Labour Court in Department of Health v. Gillen [ADE/03/15]. The next issue I will have to examine is whether the defence set out in S. 14(2) of the Acts avails the respondent, that it took "such steps as are reasonably practicable ... to prevent the person from harassing or sexually harassing the victim... "
4.13. The respondent submitted its employee handbook in evidence, which contains a clear and concise policy on matters of harassment. From the fact that the complainant was able to use it to press the respondent for an investigation into Mr B.s behaviour towards her on the social night in January 2010, I also find that it was sufficiently well distributed among staff. Mr F., who made the decision to demote Mr B., gave evidence on the respondent's complaints procedure works in practice. Normally, the manager of a complainant would complete an initial inquiry. Formal hearings, and appeals from this process, would each be completed by a different manager. The final step would be a review by a regional manager. The entire process is done within the respondent organisation, there is no delegating of such a process to outside experts.
4.14. In the case of Ms A., she states that the outcome of her grievance regarding Mr B. and Mr. C. was never relayed back to her. The respondent states that she was sent a letter with those findings, which is indeed contained in the evidence booklets of both the complainant and the respondent. According to a memorandum of a meeting contained in the complainant's evidence, the respondent also met with her while the investigation was ongoing, to explain the process and its restrictions to her.
4.15. Mr E., who was also responsible for organising training for the complainant (see paragraph 4.24 below), conducted the initial investigation. He interviewed the complainant at length - in his estimate, the interview took about three hours and the transcript runs to 31 pages. In contrast, the transcripts of his interviews with Mr A. and Mr B. are only between four and five pages each and mainly consist of denials. Mr E. further stated that while he had worked for the specific store of the respondent's which is linked to the complaint on hand for five years, he had 20 years of service with the respondent. He further stated that he had conducted over 400 similar investigations in his career with the respondent, including "every conceivable type of investigation" in one of the respondent's stores in a socially troubled area in another jurisdiction. He further stated that he spent "an inordinate amount of time" investigating the complainant's complaint, while adding that he did not think that this was unwarranted in the light of the complaint.
4.16. In terms of separating the complainant and Mr B., Mr E. confirmed that it was considered to offer the complainant employment in a different store. He also stated that he was aware that the complainant did not drive and was therefore limited in where she could accept employment from the respondent. He was also aware that unlike the complainant, Mr. B. did drive. In Mr E.'s evidence, it was Mr F. who decided to keep both the complainant and Mr B in the same store, on different shifts.
4.17. Mr G., general manager of another of the respondent's stores, located in a different region of Ireland, gave evidence of his investigation of the complainant's appeal. Mr G. has 30 years of service with the respondent, and like Mr E., both in Ireland and in other jurisdictions. He confirmed that the complainant advised him that she was unhappy with working with Mr B. and that she felt intimidated by him. He further confirmed that the complainant was unhappy not to know what was happening to Mr B. He confirmed that it was company policy to keep sanctions against invididual employees confidential. He investigated the intimidating incident the complainant had outlined in her evidence (see paragraph 4.5 above), but stated that Mr B. denied intimidating the complainant, and that there were no further witnesses to the event.
4.18. Ms B., the respondent's HR manager, gave evidence that all staff were given additional diversity training after the complainant's complaint. However, she also stated that this diversity training did not incorporate awareness training on sexual harassment.
4.19. I am satisfied that the respondent has policies in place to deal with instances of harassment, and also that the complainant's complaints were investigated extensively. From experiencing them as witnesses during the Tribunal hearing, I am further satisfied that the managers who were appointed to investigate the matter approached their task with professionalism and integrity. This part of the respondent's procedures can not be faulted.
4.20. However, it is important to note that the Acts, in setting out the defense in S. 14(2)(a) against employer's liability in cases of harassment or sexual harassment, put the onus on the employer to show that it "took such steps as are reasonably practicable [...] to prevent the person from harassing or sexually harassing the victim [...] and (b) in a case where subsection 1(b) applies [i.e. where harassment has already occurred], to prevent the victim from being treated differently in the workplace or otherwise in the course of the victim's employment" [emphasis added]. For an employer to have a well-publicised complaints procedure and to investigate any complaints are usually the first steps to achieve this aim, and very often, they are sufficient for the prevention of such conduct. In cases like the one on hand, where the respondent is a large retail business with several stores in Ireland and many more in other jurisdictions, I find that putting the onus on the complainant to work in another of its stores (given the fact that management was well aware that the complainant, unlike Mr. B., did not drive) was inappropriate and insufficient for the adequate protection of the complainant, and contrary to the provisions set out in S. 14(2)(b) of the Acts as outlined above.
4.21. In this context, I also wish to state that I found Ms A.'s evidence to the Tribunal on how Mr B. continued to intimidate her, to be credible, notwithstanding my appreciation for the difficulties which Mr G. experienced in his investigation of the matter. Mr F.'s decision to keep both of them employed in the same store, and placing the onus on the complainant to keep highlighting future inappropriate behaviour by Mr B. towards her to management, as is clear from correspondence directed to the complainant, was not adequate for the seriousness of the situation. It was within the respondent's gift to employ Mr B. in another of its stores.
4.22. Also, while I accept that the respondent felt it could not tell Ms A. what sanction Mr B. had received for the incident in the pub, it should be kept in mind that this meant, for Ms A., that she did not really receive any substantive reassurances for her personal safety, which is ultimately what the defense in S. 14(2)(a) is about: employers have to find an effective way to stop such illegal conduct, in a manner that is commensurate with the options at their disposal. In that regard, the steps of a small business with a handful of employees will be looked at differently from the situation of the respondent in the case on hand. Nothing would have prevented the respondent from erring on the side of caution and seperating Ms A. and Mr B. altogether in terms of their employment with the respondent, given that Mr B. could easily have been transferred to another store of the respondent's within the greater Dublin area.
4.23. Accordingly, I find that the respondent, despite its extensive investigation of the complainant's complaints, did not take reasonably practicable steps within the meaning of S. 14(2)(a) of the Acts to prevent the complainant's harassment from recurring, and that therefore, the defense set out in that section of the Acts can not avail the respondent. Furthermore, to offer the complainant to transfer to another store despite her lack of transport, instead of transferring Mr B., is contrary to the provision of S. 14(2)(b) of the Acts. The complainant is therefore entitled to succeed in that part of her complaint.
4.24. With regard to the complainant's complaint that she was discriminated against with regard to the provision of training, I find that the evidence does not confirm this. Mr E., who also conducted the initial investigation into the complainant's complaints, and Ms B. from the respondent's HR division gave evidence on how the complainant was facilitated with training in various aspects of the business processes that apply to a major retailer, which went considerably beyond her role. This was authorised by Mr F. and done to facilitate the complainant's study for an external course on these matters. According to Mr E., the complainant would not have been able to gain this knowledge from a paid course. The coaching continued until the complainant went absent on sick leave in February of 2010. The respondent was not obliged to provide her with such coaching. The complainant did not challenge any of this evidence. Accordingly, this part of her complaint can not succeed.
4.25. At the first day of the hearing of the complaint, I asked both parties for submission as to whether the termination of the complainant's employment with the respondent could be viewed as victimisatory constructive dismissal. I have taken these submissions into account in my deliberations on the circumstances surrounding the complainant's resignation from the respondent's employment.
4.26. As noted above, the complainant went on sick leave on 7 February 2010, after the intimdatory incident with Mr B. She filed her complaint with the Equality Tribunal on 17 February 2010. On 8 October 2010, after a prolonged absence from work, the complainant sent the following letter of resignation to Mr F:
Dear Mr F.,
I am writing to you in relation to our meeting today, the 8th October 2010. I wish to resign from [the respondent]. My reasons for resigning from [the respondent] are that I was sexually and physically assaulted, I am terrified to work within a store where my attacker is, I have and continue to be victimised by management and most staff and I have been treated very badly by [the respondent]. All these factors have affected my health and will continue to affect my health. As advised by my G.P. it wouldn't benefit my health to return to [the respondent].
I would like to take this opportunity to say that I am very disappointed that it had to come to this. Thank you for the opportunity to work at [the respondent] and to do my work experience.
4.27. The respondent had started disciplinary procedures against Ms A due to her prolonged absence from work. It is the respondent's argument that Ms A did not submit regular medical certificates with regard to her absence, and indeed there are no copies of such certificates in the evidence submitted by either side in this dispute. It must be said that although these were formal disciplinary proceedings, the tone adopted by the respondent in its communications with the complainant is friendly and non-adversarial, and does not meet the definition of "adverse treatment" within the meaning of the Acts.
4.28. On the other hand, the complainant made it constantly clear to the respondent that the reason for her absence from work was the severe anxiety she felt at the thought of encountering Mr B. again, and the lack of assurances received by the respondent. It is equally clear, from the respondent's replies, that while Mr F. did display some concern for the complainant's well-being, he did not reconsider his initial decisions with regard to Mr B. In fact, as noted above, Mr B. himself confirmed at the hearing of the complaint that he is still working in the same store, albeit still in his demoted position.
4.29. In terms of the law on constructive dismissal, be it discriminatory or victimisatory, S. 2(1) of the Acts specifies that
"dismissal" includes the termination of a contract of employment by the employee (whether prior notice of termination was or was not given to the employer) in circumstances in which, because of the conduct of the employer, the employee was or would have been entitled to terminate the contract without giving such notice, or it was or would have been reasonable for the employee to do so, and "dismissed" shall be constructed accordingly.
4.30. The Labour Court, in the case An Employer v. A Worker (Mr O)(No. 2) [EED0410], has addressed the issue of constructive dismissal under the Acts comprehensively. It set out the main applicable tests, these being the "contract" test and the "reasonableness" test, and held that these tests may be used either in combination or in the alternative. I find that in the case on hand, the reasonableness test is the relevant one. This test asks whether the employer conducts its affairs in relation to the employee so unreasonably that the employee cannot fairly be expected to put up with it any longer. What can be regarded as reasonable or unreasonable depends on the circumstances of each case. However, it is an important element of the reasonableness test that the employer has an opportunity to address an employee's grievance or complaint.
4.31. In the case on hand, I am satisfied that the complainant, both in terms of the clarity of her communications and the amount of time which elapsed before she resigned, gave the respondent ample opportunity to address her concerns in a manner that would have put her in a position to return to work. The respondent failed to do so, and therefore I am satisfied that the complainant was constructively dismissed. However, the respondent's actions in this regard flowed from the same failure to protect the complainant which has her succeed in her complaint of sexual harassment. I am not satisfied that the respondent victimised her within the meaning of the Acts. This makes the complainant's resignation from the respondent's employment a discriminatory constructive dismissal.
5. Decision
5.1. Based on all of the foregoing, I find, pursuant to S. 79(6) of the Acts, that
(i) the respondent did discriminate against Ms A. in relation to her conditions of employment contrary to S. 8(1) of the Acts by not taking reasonable and practicable steps to prevent her sexual harassment contrary to S. 14A(7) of the Acts and
(ii) the respondent did discriminatorily dismiss the complainant, by way of constructive dismissal, contrary to S. 8(6) of Acts.
5.2. In accordance with Section 82 of the Acts, I hereby order that the respondent
(i) pay the complainant € 29,756. This sum equals two year's salary for the complainant, which is the maximum award I am empowered to make under the Acts.
(ii) pursuant to S. 82(5)(b) of the Acts, pay the complainant interest at the Courts Act rate in respect of the amount at (i) above in respect of the period beginning on 17 February 2010 (being the date of the reference of the claim) and ending on 8 October 2010 (being the date on which the complainant felt forced to resign from the respondent's employment).
5.3. These awards, which I consider to be warranted in light of the severity of the unlawful conduct endured by the complainant, and the impact it had on her health and well-being, are made in compensation for the distress suffered by the complainant and are not in the nature of pay and therefore not subject to tax.
______________________
Stephen Bonnlander
Equality Officer
11 July 2013