Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Senior Healthcare Assistant

A Healthcare provider

Representatives

SIPTU

Alastair Purdy & Co. Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00023073-001

07/11/2018

The complainant submitted a claim of discrimination and sexual harassment on the ground of gender on the 7th of November 2018 under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. The claim submitted related to an allegation that the complainant was sexually harassed by service user of the respondent on the 13th of May 2018.  

The respondent does not dispute that the incident happened but submits that they dealt with the complaint made by the complainant and considered the issue had been dealt with and the resident involved left on the 15th of June 2018.

I have decided, given the sensitive nature of the complaint, to use my discretion and anonymise the parties in this decision.

The complainant submits that

She was sexually harassed by service user of the respondent (Mr. X) on the 13th of May 2018 while she was employed by the respondent,

she reported the incident to the respondent who took an account of what happened and spoke to the resident in question,

the respondent stated that the resident Mr. X had admitted what he had done but had said it was meant in a ‘friendly manner’,

the resident in question apologised to her,

she took herself off the team working with Mr. X and moved to a different team,

she continued to see Mr. X in common areas such as in the the corridor and in the dining room,

she asked the respondent to provide her with counselling, but they failed to do this or to provide her with details of a counsellor whom she could attend,

the respondent company has not acted in a preventative or remedial manner to deal with sexual harassment and that the respondent's policy on sexual harassment does not conform to the provision ns of S.l.2O8 ,

the respondent has not provided appropriate training in respect of dealing with sexual harassment,

the complainant has had to attend counselling to deal with the effects of sexual harassment,

that the respondent has not met the obligations placed on it by the Employment Equality Acts or Sl2O8.

The respondent submits   that

The complainant, a care worker reported an allegation of sexual harassment by one of the elderly residents Mr. X on the 13th of May 2018,

The respondent accepts that the incident happened as outlined by the complainant,

it raised the matter with the alleged perpetrator Mr. X who admitted to the behaviour,

Mr. X was told that this behaviour was inappropriate and that if there were any future incidents of such inappropriate behaviour it would jeopardise his residency in the nursing home,

the perpetrators request for a single room was also denied following the incident

the complainant was no longer scheduled to work on Mr. X s care team,

the respondent issued an instruction that female carers attending to Mr. X were to do so in pairs in order to prevent a recurrence of such an incident,

the respondent also provided additional training for staff,

the respondent offered the complainant counselling,

The respondent upon discovering that the complainant was dissatisfied with their response attempted to engage further with the complainant but she refused this as she had submitted her complaint to the WRC.

Relevant Legislation

Section 85A of the Employment Equality Act sets out the burden of proof which applies in a claim of discrimination:

“85A. – (1) Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a Complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to her or her, it is for the Respondent to prove the contrary.”

This section provides for the allocation of the probative burden which requires that the Complainant must first establish facts from which discrimination may be inferred. It is only when a prima facie case has been established that the burden of proof that there was no infringement of the principle of equal treatment passes to the Respondent.

Harassment and Sexual Harassment

Section 14A of the Act provides:

“14A.-(1) For the purposes of this Act, where –

(a) an employee (in this section referred to as “the victim”) is harassed or sexually harassed either at a place where the employee is employed (in this section referred to as “the workplace”) or otherwise in the course of his or her employment by a person who is –

(i) employed at that place or by the same employer,

(ii) the victim’s employer, or

(iii) a client, customer, or other business contact of the victim’s employer and the circumstances of the harassment are such that the employer ought reasonably to have taken steps to prevent it,

or

(b) without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a) –

(i) such harassment has occurred, and

(ii) either –

(I) the victim is treated differently in the workplace or otherwise in the course of his or her employment by reason of rejecting or accepting the harassment, or

(II) it could reasonably be anticipated that he or she would be so treated,

the harassment or sexual harassment constitutes discrimination by the victim’s employer in relation to the victim’s conditions of employment.”

Section 14A (7) (a) (ii) of the Act defines sexual harassment as follows:

(ii) references to “sexual harassment” are to any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature,

being conduct which in either case has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person”.

The Complainant advised the hearing that she was subjected to sexual harassment on the morning of 13th of May 2018 by an elderly resident of the nursing home who was a respite patient of the respondent when she had gone into his bathroom to help him with shaving.  She advised the hearing that she had been in the bathroom adjoining the bedroom of a resident of the nursing home, Mr. X and that she had helped him with shaving as was part of his care plan.   The complainant stated that Mr. X was seated behind her and she had turned her back to him while she emptied the sink when he put his hands on her buttocks and then on her groin area saying, “I’d love to have you in bed”. The complainant advised the hearing that she immediately told Mr. X that this behaviour was inappropriate, and she then left the room and went to the nurses station to report what had happened.   The complainant stated that Staff nurse Mr. G was at the nurses station and when she told him what had happened he had initially laughed.   The complainant stated that Mr. G later apologised to her for this and she stated that she had no problem with him.   Staff nurse Mr. G advised the complainant to put the incident in writing.     The complainant advised the hearing that she had then met staff nurse Ms. D in the kitchenette and told her what had happened with Mr. X. The complainant told the hearing that Ms. D stated that the incident would have to be documented and reported following which the complainant provided Ms. D with a written statement of the incident and Ms. D then documented the complainant’s report as an incident report on the employers Epic Care management system.

The complainant advised the hearing that Ms. D then rang the Director of nursing (DON) Ms. S to report the incident, the complainant told the hearing that she subsequently discovered that the report as documented on the Epic Care system and inputted by Ms. D was incorrect and inaccurate and did not mention the fact that the resident also touched her groin area outside of her clothes.  The complainant raised this with the DON Ms. S, at a later stage and Ms. S corrected the report on the Epic Care system.   On 16th of May 2018 the complainant was called to a meeting with the Director of nursing Ms. S and was advised that the resident Mr. X had been spoken to by the DON Ms. S and Ms M, Clinical Nurse Manager (CNM) in relation to the incident involving the complainant.   Ms. S advised the complainant that Mr. X had confirmed that he had touched the complainant as reported and Ms. S went on to state that Mr. X was advised that if he behaved in any way inappropriately in the future he would be removed from the premises, he was also advised that he would not now be getting a single room which he had requested.  

The complainant told the hearing that Mr. X had on the 22nd of May approached the complainant in the corridor seeking to apologise to her, the complainant later received confirmation that CNM Ms. M had advised Mr. X that he should apologise to the complainant.  The complainant stated that the CNM Ms. M had later approached her and apologised for directing Mr. X to apologise to the complainant for his behaviour stating that she did not realise how serious the incident was. The complainant told the hearing that on the 5th of June the complainant was in the kitchen and Mr. X was in the dining room with other residents, the complaint told the hearing that she had become upset and distressed when she caught sight of Mr. X and had asked for the door to be closed to the dining room so that she would not have to look at him.   This request caused an issue with the CNM on duty Ms. B and that afternoon the complaint was asked to attend a meeting with CNM Ms. B and DON Ms. S.   The complainant attended the meeting accompanied by her colleague Ms. G where she advised management that she felt that they had done nothing about the sexual assault and she reminded them of previous assurances given to her, the complaint at this point also advised of her intention to contact the Gardaí but submits that she was asked by Ms. S to wait until after she had contacted the Healthcare Manager, the complainant stated that she walked out of the meeting In a distressed state.

The complainant advised the hearing that arising from this she received a letter on the 18th of June from DON Ms. S which outlined the measures adopted by the respondent following the report of the incident of sexual harassment, this letter also stated that it was the respondents understanding that the incident had been dealt with appropriately and that no further action was required.   It also raised concern with the complainants behaviour on seeing Mr. X in the dining room on the 22nd of May when she asked for the door to be closed so that she wouldn’t have to look at him.   The letter stated that each resident deserves to be treated with the level of professionalism and that any issues or concerns the complainant had should be raised with the DON Ms. S.  The letter stated that the respondent was now aware that the complainant was not satisfied with the outcome following the incident and asked her to attend a meeting on 27th of June with a view to resolving the matter and moving forward. The complainant told the hearing that she responded in writing on the 22nd of June stating that she was hurt and upset by the contents of the letter and challenging a number of the points made in the letter.   The complainant advised the hearing that the meeting scheduled for the 27th of June eventually took place on the 5th of July.  

The complainant advised the hearing that she had at the 5th of July meeting again outlined what had happened with Mr. X and following this Ms. S had updated the report on the Epic Care system to include the reference to Mr. X having touched the complainant in the groin area as well as on her bottom and stating that this had been brought to Ms. S’s attention at the meeting of 5th of July 2018.

The complainant advised the hearing that she was invited to a further meeting on the 19th of July and her representative had replied stating that the respondent was not conforming to the requirements of SI 208 of 2012 in respect of its harassment and sexual harassment policy.   This meeting was deferred and eventually proceeded on the 19th of October 2018 when the complainants representative again reiterated this point and also stated that the respondent was deficient in the training of staff given the reaction the complainant had received when she first advised staff nurse Mr. G of the incident. The complainant also advised the respondent that it had been deficient in its handling of the matter and that the complainant wished to receive a formal apology from the respondent and an agreement that the respondent would redraft their policies and training requirements in this regard. The complainant told the hearing that the October meeting had concluded with the company considering its position. In addition, the complainants union representative who was present at the meeting advised the respondent that the matter would be referred to the WRC unless an appropriate solution could be found. The complainant proceeded with her claim to the WRC on the 7th of November 2018.   The complainant submits that the Respondent in this case failed take reasonable action to prevent the harassment and sexual harassment occurring in the workplace.

The respondent advised the hearing that it accepts that the incident happened as outlined by the complainant. The respondent advised the hearing that following the incident being reported by the complainant it raised the matter with the alleged perpetrator Mr. X. The respondent stated that Mr. X confirmed the complainants account and stated that he had touched her but he asserted that it was meant in a friendly way and that he had not meant anything by it. The respondent advised the hearing that Mr. X became very upset and began to cry saying that he was very sorry. The note of the meeting presented by the respondent supports this account.   The respondent went on to state that Mr. X was told that this behaviour was inappropriate and that if there were any future incidents of such inappropriate behaviour it would jeopardise his residency in the nursing home.   Mr. X was also told that he should apologise to the complainant for his behaviour which he did, and he agreed that it would not happen again.   The respondent advised the hearing that Mr. X had been waiting to be granted a single occupancy room but that he was advised that this request was now put on hold following the incident with the complainant and to ensure that staff felt safeguarded.  

The respondent advised the hearing that as a result of the incident the complainant was no longer scheduled to work on Mr. X s care team and that it had also issued an instruction that female carers attending to Mr. X were to do so in pairs in order to prevent a recurrence of such an incident.   The respondent stated that staff nurse Mr. G had apologised to the complainant for his initial reaction when she told him about the incident and the respondent stated that it had also arranged for additional training for staff following the incident in the form of a Webinar on “Sexuality and Intimacy in Aged Care”.    

The complainant raised an issue that the details of the incident had been incorrectly recorded by Ms. D on the Epic Care incident report but acknowledges that this was later corrected by Ms. S by an amendment to the report on 5th of July 2018.

It appears from the evidence adduced that the respondent only became aware on the 5th of June 2018 that the complainant was dissatisfied with how they had dealt with the matter at which point she had left the meeting and the respondent had sought to meet with the complainant to further discuss this matter a meeting which took place on 5th of July 2018. Witness for the respondent DON Ms. S advised the hearing that she had only become aware on the 5th of July 2018 that Mr. X had also touched the complainant in her groin area.

The respondent advised the hearing that the resident in question had left the respondents care on the 15th of June 2018 and so there was no question of a further sanction being imposed on him after Ms. S had received further details of the incident there was also no risk of Mr. X reoffending as he was no longer in the respondents care.    

The respondent advised the hearing that following this meeting of the 5th of July the respondent sought to meet and discuss the matter with the complainant in order to ascertain what else they could do to resolve matters and move forward. For various reasons relating to scheduling issues on both sides this meeting did not happen until October 2018.   From the evidence adduced it appears that the complainant at this meeting sought a formal apology form the respondent within a limited timeframe. The respondent told the hearing that the complainants representative also asserted that the respondents harassment policy did not comply with the relevant SI. It was agreed at this meeting that further discussion would take place and that the complainant would wait before taking any further action. The respondent submits that the complainants representative at that meeting threatened the respondent with submitting a claim to the WRC and the complainant on 7th of November 2018 submitted her claim to the WRC.

The respondent stated that they made a further attempt to engage with the complainant following notification of her claim to the WRC and invited her to a meeting to be held on 21st of January 2019 however the complainant refused to attend this meeting due to the fact that she was pursuing her complaint with the WRC.

Section 14A (2) of the Acts provides that it shall be a defence for an employer to show that it took such steps as are reasonably practicable to prevent sexual harassment and harassment occurring in the workplace and in circumstances where such harassment has occurred it took action to reverse its effect. There are essentially two components to this defence. The first is that the employer took such steps as are reasonably practicable to prevent sexual harassment and harassment occurring in the workplace, and the second component is that where such harassment has occurred the employer took action to reverse its effect. The Labour Court has held that in order for an employer to avail of the first component of this defence it must show, at a minimum, that a clear anti-harassment or dignity at work policy was in place before the harassment or sexual harassment occurred and that the policy was effectively communicated to staff.   The respondent in the instant case advised the hearing that its Employee Handbook sets out a very clear policy on Harassment and Sexual Harassment and that a copy of this handbook has been made available to all staff members.   The respondent submits start this policy clearly outlines both an informal and a formal procedure to handle a complaint in respect of any form of harassment and that this is the very procedure which the complainant relied upon in submitting her complaint. The respondent submits that this demonstrates that it had in place appropriate measures by way of a clear Sexual Harassment Policy. In addition, the respondent submits s that it took reasonably practicable steps once the incident of sexual harassment was notified to them commencing by immediately calling the alleged perpetrator to a meeting wherein it established that the incident did occur as reported by the complainant and that Mr. X was the perpetrator.   The respondent submits s that appropriate measures were taken without delay by separating the complainant from Mr. X and putting in place a distinct policy for other female staff members dealing with Mr. X going forward. In addition, the severity of the situation was outlined to Mr. X with sanctions imposed and further sanctions explained to him if such a situation were to reoccur. The respondent stated that they also provided further training and engaged with the complainant once it became clear that she was still unsatisfied with the procedures applied.

I note that the service users in this case are elderly residents of a nursing home where they are provided with care on a 24/7 basis. The respondent advised the hearing that it operates a management system Epic Care within which it records incidents involving service users.   The Epic care incident report records the details of the incident, the actions taken following the incident, who it was reported to and the outcome.  It also records who the incident was reported to and other factors taken into consideration. The Epic care incident report for this matter indicates that outside of the respondent staff the perpetrators GP was contacted as well as his son regarding the matter.  Mr. X’s GP in replying to the respondent in relation to the matter stated that this behaviour was not unusual for Mr. X.    However, I note that the respondents incident report states that they were not advised at the time of Mr. X s admittance to the nursing home that there was a risk of such inappropriate behaviour.

The respondent advised the hearing that it had dealt with the matter by raising it with Mr. X and had called the complainant to a meeting on 16th of May to update her on the position in respect of Mr. X s admittance to the purported actions of the 13th of May and the actions being taken by the respondent on foot of this. The respondent advised the hearing that the complainant appeared to be happy with the outcome and they had recorded this in the note of the meeting.

The respondent stated that it had considered that the matter had been dealt with to the complainants satisfaction until the meeting following the dining room incident on the 5th of June when the complainant became upset at seeing Mr. X in the dining room and requested that the dining room door be closed so that she did not have to look at Mr. X. The respondent called her to a meeting to this discuss this.  The respondent stated that the complainant at this meeting stated that she felt that “nothing had been done about” the incident which she had reported and the respondent stated that the complainant left the meeting in distress that day and that it had following the meeting emailed the complainant to advised her to work downstairs from now on to avoid the possibility of her seeing   Mr. X in any of the common areas of the nursing home.  

In addition, DON Ms. S advised the hearing that she had phoned the complainant the next day on the 6th of June as she was concerned about her due to how upset she had been the previous day and the fact that she had walked out of the meeting in an upset state.       Ms. S advised the hearing that during this phone call the complainant had told her that she had needed counselling in the past when feeling this way and Ms. S told her if she needed counselling now the respondent would gladly give it to her but the complainant replied that she didn’t need it.   Ms. S at the hearing stated that she should perhaps have offered the complainant counselling at an earlier stage and should have put it in writing at that stage to clarify the offer as the complainant told the hearing that she had sourced her own counselling.

The respondent stated that it then wrote to the complainant on 18th of June 2018 outlining the steps which had been taken to deal with the incident and stating that following their meeting on the 16th of May they had understood that the matter had been dealt with appropriately and that no further action was required.   This letter also stated that the respondent had now become aware that the complainant was not satisfied with the outcome and so it suggested a meeting on 27th of June 2018 this meeting took place on 5th of July 2018. Witness for the respondent Ms. S stated that she was now aware that the complainant wasn’t happy and she wanted to reach out to the complainant make sure that she was looked after.   Ms. S also advised the hearing that she had only become aware of the seriousness of the incident at this meeting as this was the first time the complainant had told her that Mr. X had also touched her in the groin area Ms. S at the meeting stated that she would have dealt with the matter in a more serious way if she had known this.   The respondent advised the hearing that they had updated the Epic Care report of the incident to include the additional details although Mr. X had since left the respondents care.   The meeting only lasted ten minutes and ended with a dispute regarding the complainants representative seeking to question the respondent on behalf of the complainant and the respondent stating that it was not appropriate.

The respondent advised the hearing that following this meeting they sought to further engage with the complainant to discuss her apparent dissatisfaction with how the respondent had handled the matter and invited the complainant to another meeting in October 2018.   The respondent advised the hearing that the complainants representative at this meeting outlined that there were two options open to the complainant one of which was to lodge a formal complaint with the WRC and the other was to receive a formal apology from the respondent.

The complainants representative also requested that staff be given appropriate training in sexual harassment and that the respondents sexual harassment policy be updated in agreement with the union.

The complainants representative at this meeting acknowledged that given the nature of the service provided by the respondent he appreciated that they were not in full control of what service users do but that they were in control of how they deal with instances of this nature and supports going forward. The respondent advised the hearing that following this meeting the complainants proceeded with her complaint to the WRC on the 7th of November 2018 and despite efforts by the respondent to continue to try and reach a resolution the complainant refused to attend any further meetings or to engage further in seeking to resolve matters to her satisfaction.

In considering this matter I note that the respondent in this case does not deny or dispute that the incident happened and also does not dispute the complainants account of the incident.   The respondent has outlined how it raised the issue with Mr. X immediately and that he admitted to the incident. The respondent stated that Mr. X was advised of the seriousness and inappropriateness of his behaviour and advised that any further incidents would not be tolerated and would result in him losing his residency. In addition, Mr. X was not granted the single room which he had requested, and female carers were required to attend to him in pairs to avoid the risk of any future incidents of this nature. The perpetrators GP and his son were also notified of the incident. In addition, the complainant was no longer assigned to care for Mr. X, and she was in fact assigned to work on a different floor to avoid the possibility of any contact with Mr. X.   Staff were also provided with training in respect of “Sexuality and Intimacy in Aged Care”.

In considering whether more could be done to protect the complainant and prevent such harassment in her workplace I am cognisant of the fact that the service users are elderly people in a nursing home setting on various levels of medication and that the respondent cannot be expected to have the same level of control over their actions as it does the actions of its own employees.   I note that he complainants representative acknowledged this fact at the meeting of October 2018.  I also note that the respondents incident report states that they were not advised at the time of Mr. X s admittance to the nursing home that there was a risk of inappropriate behaviour so would not have been aware of any necessity to take extra precautions when assigning him female carers.   However, I am satisfied that the responded following the incident directed that female carers were only to attend to Mr. X in pairs and not to do so alone. In addition, he was not provided with a single occupancy room in order to ensure that staff members felt safeguarded when assisting him. I also note that Mr. X following the incident was advised by the respondent that this was inappropriate behaviour and that any further incident like this would jeopardise his residency in the nursing home.   In addition, the complainant herself advised the hearing that she had reported the incident to the guards but that it had not gone any further been decided not to prosecute due to Mr. X s age and medical history. I note that Mr. X did leave the nursing home on the 16th of June 2018 thus removing the threat of any further inappropriate behaviour from him.

While there was an issue raised by the complainant regarding an assertion that the initial description of the incident reported on the respondents incident report was incomplete and so did not appear as serious as it was., this was later corrected by Mr. S on the incident report once she was advised by the complainant that the details of the incident were incomplete.  

The complainant in advancing her case relied upon the following caselaw:

ADJ-00013554 A Catering Assistant Vs A Facilities Company, ADJ-00015003 A Shop Assistant Vs A Retailer and Labour Court DETERMINATION NO.EDA1931 WATERFORD INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Vs LOUISE WALSH.

I am satisfied that this case differs significantly from those relied upon as firstly it does not involve a colleague of the complainant or other staff member as it involves an allegation of sexual harassment of a staff member by a service user who in this case was an elderly resident in receipt of respite care at a nursing home.

I also note that the respondent in this case has a sexual harassment policy to deal with incidents of sexual harassment from colleagues and that it has an incident report system for dealing with incidents involving residents.   In this case the reporting of the incident resulted in the perpetrator being advised that his behaviour was inappropriate and that any future offences would carry a sanction of removing him from the nursing home. He was also denied a single room following the incident.

I also note that this case differs from other cases in that it involves a one-off incident not a pattern or continuum of harassment or sexual harassment.

In addition, the respondent accepts that the incident happened and that it happened in the way the complainant outlined.   While there was an issue raised by the complainant regarding an assertion that the initial description of the incident reported on the respondents incident report was incomplete and so did not appear as serious as it was., this was later corrected by Ms. S on the incident report once she was advised by the complainant that the details of the incident were incomplete.   I also note that the perpetrator in this case was clearly identified and that the matter was raised with him.   It is clear from the evidence adduced that the perpetrator did not deny the incident and so there is no question as to whose version the respondent believes.

The perpetrator in this case acknowledged his actions and apologised to the complainant.   The perpetrator was held accountable for his actions and advised that any further behaviour of such manner would be punishable by his losing his residency at the care home.   I also note that following the incident the perpetrator was denied a single room which prior to the incident he had been in line to receive and that it was explained to him that the reason for the denial of this privilege was due to his behaviour with the complainant and in order to ensure the safety of other staff and to safeguard female staff from the risk of future similar incidents.   I note that female staff members were only assigned to care for Mr, X in pairs following the incident and that he was not given a single room.     I also note that the complainant was removed from the perpetrators care team following the incident so as that she would not have to deal with him.

It emerged at the hearing that the perpetrator in fact left the care home on the 15th of June 2018 and so no question arises in respect of possible future incidents or inappropriate behaviour emanating from Mr. X.   The complainant continues to work for the respondent.

The complainant in this case raised an issue with how the matter was dealt with by the respondent staff once the incident was reported she stated that staff nurse Mr. G had initially laughed when she told him about the incident.   Mr. G later apologised to the complainant for this and the complainant stated that she had no problem or issue with him.   The complainant reiterated this at the hearing.  

The complainant also raised an issue with the initial recording of the incident by Ms. D as she states that the recorded version on the incident report was not as serious as her report however it is clear that this report was amended and corrected once the complainant made Ms. S aware of the exact details of the incident.

The respondent also advised the hearing that it offered the complainant counselling to support her following the incident but that she chose not to avail of this. This offer is also referred to and reiterated in the respondent letter to the complainant dated 14th of February 2019. This letter also advised the complainant that additional training had been procured which would focus on the emotional wellbeing of healthcare employees and how to deal with challenging behaviours in the workplace. The respondent advised the hearing that that it was the complainant who ultimately disengaged from the process by refusing to participate post October 2018 and that the respondent has satisfied the requirements set out under Section 14A (2).  

I am satisfied that the Complainant in the present case was subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace by Mr X a service user of the respondent however having carefully considered all of evidence adduced and the circumstances of this case I am satisfied that the respondent in this case           has put in place appropriate measures and has taken reasonably practicable steps to prevent such harassment and sexual harassment occurring in the workplace, such as to enable it to rely on Section 14A (2) of the Employment Equality Acts.  Accordingly, I do not find in favour of the complainant.

I am satisfied that the Complainant in the present case was subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace by Mr X a service user of the respondent however having carefully considered all of evidence adduced and the circumstances of this case I am satisfied that the respondent in this case           has put in place appropriate measures and has taken reasonably practicable steps to prevent such harassment and sexual harassment occurring in the workplace, such as to enable it to rely on Section 14A (2) of the Employment Equality Acts.   Accordingly I do not find in favour of the complainant.