Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Doctor

A Health Authority

Representatives

Tom O’Donnell BL instructed by English Leahy Solicitors

IR Representative

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-00036052-001

07/05/2020

The Complainant filed her complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission on 7 May 2020 as against the Respondent for a claim of discrimination on the grounds of her gender, victimisation sexual harassment and harassment with the most recent date of discrimination stated as 10 April 2020.

The hearing was conducted remotely hearing in accordance with the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and Statutory Instrument 359/2020 which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The Complainant and her witness swore an affirmation and gave evidence at the hearing. Two witnesses on behalf of the Respondent swore an affirmation and gave evidence at the hearing.

Given the sensitive nature of this case, it was decided to anonymous the decision.

The Complainant commenced work as a Senior House Officer (SHO) on 7 January 2018 in the Paediatric Department of a hospital with an initially contract of six months which was extended for one year in July 2019.

It was the Complainant’s evidence that her complaint was against a senior Consultant. Initially, their relationship was strictly professional until he began to text her in July 2019. The Complainant engaged with him as she felt it was work-related, but he said he wanted to meet for a “coffee, dinner or walk on the beach”. She gave evidence that she became upset and when she asked where he got her number, he replied; “That’s a secret.”

She accepted under cross examination that the Consultant had temporarily located in another hospital at this time and in 2018 there were no text messages.

A second text came on 20 July 2019 after midnight asking if she was asleep? She gave evidence that she was very upset as her husband was on night duty at the time. When she spoke to her husband about the text the next day, he suggested that they meet in a public place to rule out any work related issued.  

At the meeting she explained to him that she suffered from migraines and he told her she was not dying. He asked her about her career and suggested he could help her get Registrar’s position. It was her evidence that he asked her for sexual favours in exchange for such help.

Her husband gave evidence that he was aware of the texts and “did not know what to do”  and “he  was afraid that he would revenge her” is she refused so he suggested she meet with the Consultant to find out what he wanted. Her husband gave evidence that he waited in the car park near the café while she met with the Consultant.

It was put to her in cross examination that she was willing to meet with the Consultant to which she replied that she explained to the Consultant that she could not talk to him any more and how she was scared for her job. The Complainant was questioned about her text message of 20 July 2019 at 11.27pm thanking him for his time and support and effort to comfort her, the Complainant replied that she was scared of his reaction.

There were a number of texts in the days after where the Consultant sought to meet the Complainant again and she declined as well as asking about her health.

The text messages continued in August 2020 where she explained that it was a “a pleasure to hear your opinion and advice about [my] job.” She continued; “I felt really flattered. I admire you as a person and as a doctor and your friendship is a real honour for me. My life is not easy, and I don’t want to cause you any trouble because I have deep respect for you.”

She gave evidence that she was scared of him and replied to be “polite”.

On 1 September 2019, the Consultant sent a further text, but the Complainant did not reply. She stated she was so upset at that time and spoke to her colleague who further suggested she speak with a more senior doctor in the hospital about the text messages.

During this time, she was attending her GP regularly with migraines and told him about her issues with the Consultant. She was prescribed medication for her migraines. She was also referred to Occupational Health by her employer.

It was accepted in cross examination that the Respondent also organised counselling for the Complainant through the Occupational Health Service, but she had to pay for it herself.

On 3 September 2019, she attended the offices of the Clinical Lead with her husband with a print out of the text messages from the Consultant. She gave evidence that Clinical Lead refused to look at the text messages but stated he would talk to the Consultant. He further warned her not to talk about it to anyone in the hospital about this. The Clinical Lead did advise her the Consultant would be returning to the Hospital in January 2020. The Complainant advised him of her appointment with Occupational Health the following week.

The Complainant’s husband agreed with her evidence that the Clinical Lead did not look at the messages but told her he would “sort it”.

When she visited the Occupational Health, she was told by the Doctor that she would be best to leave the hospital .   He asked if she had been advised of the outcome of the Clinical Lead’s meeting with the Consultant. She replied she had not so the Occupational Health Doctor agreed to follow up with the Clinical Lead.

After this visit, the Complainant met the Clinical Lead in the corridor and he told her “that’s sorted” but did not say anything further. The Complainant gave evidence that she did not receive any further texts after this from the Consultant.

It was put to her in cross examination that the Clinical Lead had assisted her, and she accepted he was helpful and was relieved the Consultant had stopped texting her.

The Consultant returned to the Hospital on 13 January 2020 and she did not talk to him until the following day when he approached her in the staff kitchen to give out to her about a patient. When she sought to reason her approach to the patient’s treatment as being against her knowledge or licence , he refused to listen to her and spoke to her in a loud voice.

The next weekend on the 18 or 19 January 2020, as the Junior Doctor, she was presenting the case and the Consultant, in front of the entire team, told her , her English was terrible. She gave evidence that this was the first time any issue with her English.

The Complainant gave evidence that most of the her SHO’s spoke the same native language as the Consultant  , which was not English, and would exclude her from work conversations. She stated she was worried that she did not understand what was happening with the patients and complained to the Clinical Lead. It was her evidence that the Clinical Lead did not say anything in relation to this complaint.

When asked if she spoke to any of her colleagues about this she gave evidence that one of her colleagues told her the other doctors had a nick name for her in their native language and they all knew her story with the Consultant.

The Complainant met with the General Manager of the Hospital in February 2020 with her husband, but he was asked to stay outside. The Complainant described it as a “very unpleasant meeting” with the General Manager questioning her mental health and suggested she see a psychiatrist. The Complainant found this “extremely frustrating”. The General Manager read the text messaged and it was the Complainant’s evidence that it was not the first time such a thing had happened with this Consultant. The Complainant gave evidence that she was told by the General Manager that the Consultant will never change, that he had “at least five relationships in the Hospital”. She suggested it would be in her best interested to leave the Hospital. The Complainant brought up her concerns about moving hospital as her daughter would be stressed about moving school to which the General Manager said; “She will adjust”.

The General Manager sent the Complainant a letter of 4 February 2020. The Complainant gave evidence that the General Manager never offered her the formal complaint’s procedure. The Complainant did accept it was agreed that the General Manager would talk to the Consultant about his behaviour. It was the Complainant’s evidence that the letter was not reflective of their meeting.

There was a follow up meeting arranged for 3 March 2020 but was delayed twice. When it did happen, it was 10 minutes in duration and the General Manager repeated that she needed to leave the Hospital. She was told to talk to another Doctor who would listen to what she had to say. The Complainant gave evidence that the General Manager said “the boys were playful” which she clarified as understanding was meaning the Consultant and the Clinical Lead.

It was put to the Complainant in cross examination why she did not file a formal complaint against the Consultant after her meeting with the General Manager when the Dignity and Respect Policy was enclosed. The Complainant stated that she expected the General Manager to write her complaint down, but she do not take notes. The Complainant also stated she went to the Clinical Lead. It was put to her that due to the lack of a formal complaint, it was very difficult for management to elevate the issues.

The Complainant noted that her contract was due to expire on 12 July 2020 and she did not know what she was going to do.  She followed up with the Clinical House Doctor who told her he did not know anything about the contract with the Hospital despite it being advertised. Instead he told the Complainant that he could help her leave the Hospital, but she further explained about her daughter and her school.

The Complainant gave evidence that most of her other colleagues were asked to stay on at the hospital, but she was interviewed three times for each extension.

The last time she spoke with the Clinical Lead was on 11 March 2020 in the treatment room when she asked if there was any chance she could stay, to which he replied, “no”.  It was the Complainant’s evidence that there was a SHO position later advertised but the Clinical Lead never mentioned this.

The Complainant interviewed and was successful in obtaining a position of Registrar in another hospital on 11 March 2020 which she felt she was not given any option but to take. She described the time as being very stressful as it was during the Covid19 lockdown and her husband had to find a new job, her daughter a new school and a new house.

 From the period from February to July 2020 she described being ignored by her colleagues and was told this is how people would punish people in the Consultant’s native country.

The Complainant explained that her new position is good, but she has not overcome what has happened to her.

Upon inquiry, the Complainant stated she did not receive Dignity at Work training from the Respondent nor was she aware of any training that took place after her meeting with the General Manager.

Referring to the section on Bullying and Harassment by Non- Employees, the Complainant was asked if an investigation had taken place, to which she stated no. In relation to the Policy, she was not told by the Clinical Lead that he was not the appropriate manager to speak to nor was she offered mediation nor did anyone from HR contact her.

There were no meeting notes of her meetings with the General Manager or the Clinical Lead. She was of the view that by meeting with the Clinical Lead and the General Manager and putting the text messages to them that this was enough. She accepted she did not write back to the General Manager’s letter of 4 February 2020 to correct the record.

The Clinical Lead gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent and described himself as a Supervisor for all medical doctors working in the Paediatric Department for the previous 3 years. However, he was not a manger as per the Dignity at Work policy.

He accepted he met with the Complainant on 30 August 2020 as he had kept handwritten notes. He stated her husband stood at the door. The Clinical Lead stated he did not read the messages as far as he was concerned they were between “two consenting adults at the time”. He confirmed in his evidence he agreed to speak with the Consultant on behalf of the Complainant and the messages stopped after he spoke with him. It was his evidence that he would speak informally to the Consultant. He denied saying to the Complainant not to speak to anyone in the Hospital about the incident or meeting.

The Clinical Lead confirmed that he met with the Complainant in the Hospital and she advised him the messages had stopped.

As regards the Registrar posts, the Clinical Lead gave evidence that he did not always know in advance about vacancies, but the Complainant was offered a SHO position. He gave evidence that she never mentioned anything about the position in the other hospital. He stated he did offer to give her a reference for any Registrar position she applied for which he did so on 1 April 2020. The Clinical Lead outlined the career path for a SHO in the area as rotating every six moths and they rarely stated longer than that with most Junior Doctors only staying 1 – 1.5 years in a hospital.

Upon inquiry of the Clinical Lead about his position and where it fits within the Dignity at Work policy , he stated there were five Consultants in the Department and while he was a Supervisor for Junior Doctors , the Complainant’s position was a stand-alone post. However, he did accept that it was appropriate for her to go to him about the text messages and described her as being “very uncomfortable” about the texts. He described their meeting as being informal as it was not pre-planned. It was his evidence that he did not recall seeing any texts on the phone or in print nor did he request to see them. It was his evidence that the reason he did not look at the texts was he suspected that he would feel uncomfortable looking at private messages between two adults.

The Clinical Lead described his relationship with the Consultant and stated he worked with him for many years, he was a “colleague and a business contact”. He gave evidence he did not contact the hospital in which the Consultant was working in at the time. It was the Clinical Lead’s evidence that he did not arrange a formal meeting with the Complainant in his office after he met with the Consultant as he would “not meet with Junior Doctors on my own for various reasons.” And felt it was sufficient to discuss the matter in the corridor of the hospital.

There was no follow up with the Complainant and Consultant upon the Consultant’s return to the Hospital in January 2020 as the Clinical Lead was of the view that the matter had resolved itself and therefore was unnecessary. Under cross examination he stated he was not aware of any concerns around hostile treatment in the workplace subsequent to his meeting with Complainant in his office.

It was accepted that he met with the General Manager after the Complainant went to her and informed her about the text messages.

Upon inquiry he accepted that he did not receive training in the Dignity at Work policy at any stage, but he did have a handbook.

The General Manager gave evidence that she met with Complainant in what she described as a meeting that was not “pre-planned”. She agreed with the Complainant’s evidence that the General Manager would speak with the Consultant and remind him of their professional relationship. She stated that she was conscious that the Complainant was “tearful” and “stressed” at the meeting but did not accept that she said anything about going to see a psychiatrist. It was her evidence that it was the first time she met with her and therefore did not know anything about mental health issues. The General Manager confirmed under cross examination that she did read the text messages presented by the Complainant.

In relation to questions around whether she asked the Complainant if she wanted to make a formal complaint, the General Manager said she “would have asked” and by the end of the  meeting concluded that it was an “informal” complaint. She confirmed under cross examination that she gave the Complainant a copy of the relevant policy attached it to her follow up letter. She confirmed the policy would have been emailed through the e-learning system from October 2011. The General Manager stated; “ it was really not appropriate to get into the formal vs informal procedure at the meeting as she was so upset”. It was put to the General Manager that her letter did not reflect this position nor were any of her notes or records presented in the Respondent’s submissions.

After this meeting, the General Manger spoke with the Clinical Lead on 3 February 2020 about the Complainant’s case who subsequently explained his interaction with the Complainant in 2019.

The General Manager met the Complainant again in March 2020 to see how she was doing, and no further issues were reported to her. She refuted the comment that “boys are playful” or that there had been a history of complaints against the Consultant or did she suggest that the Complainant leave the hospital.

The General Manager confirmed under cross examination that she was “the responsible person and GM of the Hospital” as per the Dignity Policy. It was her evidence that she responded, “promptly and discreetly and within 48 hours “I had dealt with the matter”.

The General Manager confirmed there was no Registrar position available in the Hospital at the time the Complainant complains of.

It was the General Manager ‘s evidence that she was not aware of the Complainant’s concerns around the Consultant’s return to work in the Hospital in January 2020.

Upon inquiry, the General Manager confirmed that there was nothing in writing to the Consultant or the Clinical Lead following her meetings with them nor was there a response in writing from the Consultant to their conversation.

Burden of Proof

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.”

Gender Discrimination

Section 6 (1) (a) of the Employment Equality Act 1998, as amended, (the “Act”) defines gender discrimination as:

“6.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, discrimination shall be taken to occur where, on any of the grounds in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as “the discriminatory grounds”), one person is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated.

(a) that one is a woman and the other is a man (in this Act referred to as “the gender ground”),”

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) of the Act defines sexual harassment as follows:

(a) In this section—

(i) references to harassment are to any form of unwanted conduct related to any of the discriminatory grounds, and

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

(b) 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.

(c) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a), such unwanted conduct may consist of acts, requests, spoken words, gestures or the production, display or circulation of written words, pictures or other material.”

The Labour Court inNail Zone Ltd v A Worker, Labour Court Determination EDA 1023, 10 November 2010,defined the law in relation to harassment as :

“The essential characteristics of harassment within this statutory meaning is that the conduct is (a) unwanted and (b) that it has either the purpose or effect of violating a person's dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person. This suggests a subjective test and if the impugned conduct had the effect referred to at paragraph (b) of the subsection, whether or not that effect was intended, and whether or not the conduct would have produced the same result in a person of greater fortitude than the complainant, it constitutes harassment for the purpose of the Acts.”

Section 23 of the Acts was specifically raised by the Complainant in legal submission:

23.—(1) 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.

(2) 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.”

It is further noted that the Respondent’s own Dignity at Work Policy at Section 8 provides for a procedure for “Bullying/Harassment by Non- Employees” and states that “If an employee who feels that s/he has been subjected to inappropriate behaviour by a non-employee, s/he should bring the matter to the attention of his/her manager so that the matter can be investigated, and appropriate action taken.”

The Clinical Lead accepted under cross examination that at the time he went to visit the Consultant that he would have considered him as a business contact. Furthermore, the Complainant’s complaints extend to the period from January 2020 when the Consultant return to work in the Hospital and therefore, was an employee of the Respondent. Consequently, the Respondent’s argument that the Consultant was not an employee at the time of the text messages is not accepted.

Furthermore, I find that the Complainant’s complaint relates to one continuous act of discrimination on the ground of gender in which she was harassed, victimised and sexual harassed by the Consultant. From the period of January 2020, the Consultant was employee of the Respondent and the acts complained of by the Complainant were directly related to the text messages he sent in the summer of 2019.

Comparator

Section 7 of the Act sets out the requirement on the Complainant to provide a comparator who carries out “like work” in order to ground a complaint of discrimination. A comparator must be employed by the same employer but need not be employed at the same time. In some instances, a hypothetical comparator may be relied upon to demonstrate how a person is treated less favourably than the Complainant. If the treatment complained of was because of a protected characteristic, e.g. gender, a hypothetical comparator is a supposed person who does not have that characteristic but who would otherwise in the same position as the Complainant.

In terms of the claim of gender discrimination, it is undisputed between the parties that the Complainant is female, and it was not disputed that the Consultant, is male.

Victimisation

Section 74 of the Employment Equality Act defines victimisation:

“(2) For the purposes of this Part, victimisation occurs where the dismissal or other penalisation of the complainant was solely or mainly occasioned by the complainant having, in good faith—

(a) sought redress under this Act or any enactment repealed by this Act for discrimination or for a failure to comply with an equal remuneration term or an equality clause (or a similar term or clause under any such repealed enactment),

(b) opposed by lawful means an act which is unlawful under this Act or which was unlawful under any such repealed enactment,

(c) given evidence in any criminal or other proceedings under this Act or any such repealed enactment, or

(d) given notice of an intention to do anything within paragraphs (a) to (c).”

In Public Appointments Services v Roddy, EDA1019, the Equality Tribunal held that in order to  meet the burden of proof required by s.85A of the Employment Equality Acts , the Complainant must demonstrate that there is a causal connection between their taking of proceedings, or protected act and the adverse treatment by the Respondent.

Evidence

It was flagged to the Respondent that it was at an evidential disadvantage as it had neither the Consultant or Occupational Health Doctor in attendance at the hearing. In the particular circumstances of the case, the Respondent was given an opportunity for the Consultant, in particular, to attend the hearing. However, the Respondent was advised that he was unavailable and would be unavailable for the foreseeable future.

Therefore, based on the law of evidence where the Complainant’s own evidence went uncontested as to her interaction with the Consultant and Occupational Health Doctor. The text messages and conversations between the Consultant and Complainant were not disputed by the Respondent nor  was the impact on her health or the medical advice she was given received. Consequently, I accept her version of events.

Similarly, there was no witness from the Respondent’s side to rebute the Complainant’s evidence of her treatment on the wards as regards her exclusion from professional conversations regarding patients when her colleagues spoke a language which was not English which was contrary to that of the Complainant’s own evidence. Therefore, her evidence is accepted in relation to this claim. Similarly, the conversation between the Complainant and her colleague regarding the nick name she had been labelled with is accepted. Overall,  I found the Complainant to be very clear in her evidence.

While the Respondent raised issues with the failure of the Complainant to follow its Dignity at Work policy by raising a formal grievance. I find this line of defence particularly unusual where the Respondent’s main witnesses , despite being of the view that they both dealt with complaints which fell significantly below the standard expected of senior management who ought to lead by example and follow the agreed policies as implemented to the letter.

The Clinical Lead accepted he had a copy of the Dignity at Work policy. He was unable to accept that he was the Complainant’s Line Manager as per the Dignity at Work policy throughout the hearing nor could he identify who was the appropriate person. Furthermore, there was a procedure in place for dealing with non-employees which was not followed. Instead the complaint was dealt with , in what appears as, in an off the record manner, having a word with his business contact , in his home.

It is clear that despite the General Manager describing the Complainant has being “tearful” and “stressed” at their meeting she stated she dealt with the matter  “promptly and discreetly and within 48 hours “I had dealt with the matter. Aside from a letter to the Complainant herself, there were no notes, no records of their meeting nor was there any record or follow up letter to the Consultant. There is no record of the complaint or its resolution. The General Manager accepted upon inquiry that there was no explanation of the Dignity at Work policy to the Complainant at their meeting and in her direct evidence stated; “ it was really not appropriate to get into the formal vs informal procedure at the meeting as she was so upset”. It is acknowledged that a copy of the policy was furnished in the letter of 4 February 2020 and there was a follow up meeting.

However, this came after the Complainant’s interactions with the Clinical Lead and the nod and a wink manner in which her initial complaint was dealt with and then when she sought assistance from the General Manager, she described the meeting as “unpleasant”.

It is accepted that there is a procedure entitled Local Intervention of an Appropriate Manager which provides for “an informal low key and non-confrontational manner by making the alleged perpetrator aware of the effects of his/her behaviour”. This procedure is was not appropriate for the General Manager of the Hospital where there was no “manager at a more senior level” who could have dealt with the complaint where the matter did not come to a satisfactory outcome. In the absence of having anyone more senior to complain to, it is understandable why the Complainant lost faith in the procedure. Most importantly and by the General Manager’s own admission there was no discussion or agreement with the Complainant as to the procedure she wished to opt for.

While the Dignity at Work policy does state that complaints be dealt with without delay given the fact the meeting  took place on 3 February 2020 where evidence was given that it was difficult meeting for the Complainant and there was no discussion around which procedures she wanted to follow. Consequently, it is clear that it was the General Manager unilateral decision to speak to the Consultant. The Dignity at Work policy was not provided to the Complainant until a letter dated 4 February 2020,  but it is unclear when the Complainant received it. The General Manager gave evidence that she spoke to the Clinical Lead on 3 February and the Consultant on 5 February 2020. In such a case where the Complainant was clearly  very upset at a meeting discussing such a serious complaint that she be forced to make a decision (A) on the spot as to how proceed without having the benefit of (A) any discussion around her options as regards the Dignity at Work policy or (B) a copy of policy in front of her, (C) an accompanying person to discuss the matter with and (D) a reasonable time, at least a number of days, to consider the options available to her and(E ) a follow up call or meeting to ensure she had sufficient time to consider the policy before acting, I find entirely unreasonable and unacceptable on the part of the Respondent. I find it even more disappointing that the General Manager took pride in having dealt with the matter “within 48 hours” which only serves further demonstrate the Respondent’s insensitive attitude towards such a serious complaint. Regardless of the other demands of the role of a General Manager or any other position, a complaint of sexual harassment, harassment and gender discrimination must be dealt with appropriately and with the seriousness it deserves and in the interest of fairness to all parties involved. There is a heavy burden on the Respondent to lead by example and first follow its own procedures.

On this basis I find that the Complainant has established a prima facia case of discrimination on the ground of gender in relation to sexual harassment, victimisation and harassment.

In relation to the second complaint of victimisation by the Respondent by failing to offer the Complainant a Registrar position, I do not find the Complainant has established a prima facia case. The evidence of the Clinical Lead around the usual practice of SHO moving from hospital to hospital is accepted. Furthermore, there was no evidence presented to me by the Complainant that there was a Registrar position open at the Hospital from July 2020.  The Respondent’s email evidence of 30 March 2020 and subsequent correspondence is accepted in this regard.

For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the Complainant was sexually harassed and harassed in the course of her employment and that the harassment constituted discrimination and victimisation against her by the Respondent on grounds of her gender.

(1)    Having regard to all the circumstance of this case I am satisfied that the appropriate redress is an award of compensation and I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant the sum of €65,000 No part of this award is in respect of remuneration. This sum is arrived at not only to compensate the Complainant for the discriminatory treatment but also to dissuade the Respondent from discriminatory acts into the future.

(2)     I order the Respondent to carry out a full in person information and training session to all staff and management, including new members of staff and management, of the Dignity at Work policy,

Employment Equality – Sexual Harassment – Harassment – Gender – Victimisation - Well Founded