Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Pooja  Patwa

ICTS

Representatives

Alan Murphy MurphyHR

 Peninsula Business Services Ireland

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00069722-004

03/03/2025

The complainant commenced her employment as a security officer on August 26th, 2024,  and her employment was terminated on December 10th, 2024. She is bringing a claim under the Employment Equality Act.

Although she does not have one year’s service, she says that where the dismissal arises under the employment equality acts a dismissal related to the employee's opposition to discriminatory harassment is automatically unfair.

While employed, the complainant was assigned to a contract with a third party company. An employee of that company (Mr A) took an undue personal interest in her. He leveraged his authority, under the guise of offering career mentorship and advancement "as an Indian," to cultivate a personal relationship. This included providing her with a company phone for private communication, offering lifts home, and probing into her personal life to identify and exploit vulnerabilities.

The complainant felt she could not refuse these advances due to the significant power imbalance and his assertions that he was "old, lonely, and abandoned" and could influence her career. This behaviour created an intimidating, hostile, and offensive working environment for the complainant.

The situation escalated when the complainant discovered Mr A was concealing their interactions from his family. After she confronted him and warned that she would report his behaviour to ICTS management, he and  became hostile and threatened to have her transferred and implied he could influence the termination of the ICTS contract with the third party.

Following this confrontation, the complainant suffered direct retaliation and was moved to a different building where her work was subjected to intense micromanagement under his supervision. The stress from this situation culminated in the complainant being hospitalised during her shift on 28th November.

After seeking help from ICTS supervisors, she was assured she would be transferred back to her original post by 9th December. However, following a heated argument with Mr. A on 8th December 2024, this transfer was abruptly denied.

On 10th December 2024, immediately after working an extra night shift, she was sent a termination letter citing her short service and lack of suitability for the role. No warnings or disciplinary procedures were followed2424. When she contacted Mr. A  he denied any knowledge of the decision.

The Complainant appealed the dismissal on 11th December. A meeting was held on 23rd December 2024, and the appeal was rejected on 21st January

Evidence of complainant on affirmation.

The complainant described her relationship with Mr A. She said that he approached her on a number of occasions and told her that he was looking for a relationship. He gave her a lift to and from work every day.

In due course she noticed a call on his phone from a person who was revealed to be Mr A’s wife. She confronted him about this.

In the course of cross examination, she confirmed that she had been approached by Mr A in September 2024  and he described to her his role in the company. He told her that he had mentored other  women who had benefitted from this in their careers.

In fact, he did not assist her in her work but mainly in her personal life, and with shopping and other tasks. Their relationship  became a romantic one and did not end following the events described above, specifically the revelation that he was married. Mr A told her that he was separated.

She also confirmed that the respondent was not told of the relationship although she threated Mr A that she would do so.  

On December  4th 2024 Mr. Noel Hoey, Training Manager for the Respondent prepared a report on the conduct of the complainant in dealing with a colleague from a different country to her. A copy of this document was submitted).

On the 5th of December 2024 Mr. Terry Steeples, ICTS Cluster Account Manager emailed colleagues examining the complainant’s poor work performance. He noted the complainant was struggling with all aspects of her work and had a difficult relationship with a number of her colleagues and had made a number of malicious comments which her supervisors believed to be race related.

It was also noted the complainant refused to work in a number of locations and claimed to be claustrophobic.

It should be noted the complainant did not indicate any difficulties or concerns on her health assessment form when she commenced working for the Respondent, a copy of this document is exhibited at APPENDIX 5 in the Respondent’s book of documents.

On all the circumstances based on her poor work performance and her inability to fulfil any tasks the Respondent decided to proceed with a short service dismissal of the complainant.

On the 10th of December 2024 Mr. Steeples wrote to the complainant and informed her that she was being dismissed as she had failed to demonstrate suitability for the role.

The complainant invoked her right to appeal her dismissal, and a hearing took place on the 23rd of December 2024, a copy of the notes of this hearing are attached at APPENDIX 7 in the Respondent’s Book of Documents.

The decision to dismiss the complainant was upheld and she was informed that the decision to dismiss her was upheld and a copy of this correspondence is exhibited at APPENDIX 8 in the Respondent’s Book of Documents.

The Respondent denies that the complainant was unfairly dismissed.

The complainant was advised of her ability to appeal this decision.

The complainant has brought a second claim under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 (“1998 Act”)and claims she was treated differently due to her gender.

The Respondent rejects all allegations of discrimination. The complainant has alleged that she was in a relationship with a named individual with whom she entered a personal relationship This individual was not an employee of the Respondent, and the Respondent was not made aware of this relationship until the complainant raised it at the appeal hearing.

The Respondent was not aware of this personal relationship, the person with whom the complainant was in a began a relationship with was not an employee of the Respondent.

The respondent also rejects any assertion that the complainant was discriminated against based on her gender.

It is respectfully submitted that the complainant has failed to establish any facts linking her dismissal with any acts of discrimination on the grounds of gender or otherwise.

The complainant has also failed to identify a suitable comparator as required by Section 7(1) of the principal Act to show that she has been treated less favourably.

The complainant has in fact failed to identify how she was discriminated in any way by the Respondent.

Mr Terry Sheeple gave evidence on affirmation. He stated that he had no knowledge of the relationship between the complainant and Mr A. and said that the decision to terminate the complainant‘s employment had been made by him and that it had been purely related to the complainant’s performance.

He was asked whether Mr A had any role in relation to the respondent’s contract with the third party he said that he did not.

He confirmed that there had been no process of notification or a hearing in relation to the termination.

The complainant has made a complaint under the Employment Equality Acts.

She only had some three and a half months’ service with the respondent this would fail to meet the one year’s service requirement in the Unfair Dismissals Act. 

In her submission she asserts that ‘a claim for unfair dismissal is permissible where the dismissal is connected to an employee seeking redress under the Employment Equality Acts. A dismissal related to an employee's opposition to discriminatory harassment is automatically unfair.’

She has relied on In O'Leary v The C-View Company Ltd (UD/18/123),  where it was affirmed that a dismissal connected to an equality ground is unfair, regardless of service length.

The manner in which the dismissal was effected was certainly peremptory and lacking in procedural fairness. However, as she has accepted in her own submission in order to make her complaint one of discriminatory dismissal, she must link it to one of the grounds covered in the Employment Equality Act.

This is where Mr A comes in. Likewise, he is the central figure in the complaint of harassment.

The complainant’s submission above contains phrases such as that Mr A took ‘an undue interest in her’, that he ‘leveraged his authority’ and that she ‘could not refuse his advances’.

She attributes to a confrontation she had with Mr A (over the fact that he was, in fact, married) the fact that she was moved to a situation in which her work was subjected to ‘micromanagement’ by Mr A. This appears to have been the only episode she relies on to ground the allegation of harassment.

While all of these events have been linked by the complainant in her submission to her abrupt termination, and this is obviously her main source of grievance, the question remains as to whether there has been any breach of the Equality Act.

Without any great difficulty I find there is not. The complainant has failed utterly to make out a prima facie case of anything resembling a complaint related to an equality ground that would bring it within the jurisdiction of the Act. Her transfer following the row with her Mr A has not in any way been connected to any act of sexual harassment or to the gender ground.

While in principle actions by Mr A can fall to be dealt under this complaint although he is not an employee of the respondent, the only act of harassment complained of was her transfer to another building after a row which followed her discovery that Mr A had a wife. (although when this emerged, he told her he was separated).

It is helpful to look more closely at that relationship between the complainant and Mr A.

Despite the dark tone of the language used above about the relationship with Mr A the picture painted by the complainant’s evidence to the hearing could hardly have been in starker contrast. It was if the written submission had been prepared in respect of an entirely different set of circumstances!

Her evidence was to the effect that she was actually involved in a ‘romantic relationship’ with Mr A which persisted after these events. It even survived her becoming aware of Mr A having, (or having had) a wife. The assertion that there was some ‘coercive’ element to it was specifically contradicted by her own evidence.

Indeed, she confirmed that their main interaction was outside the workplace, although he drove her to and from work every day, but that it included shopping together. What we see here is an ordinary consensual relationship and the attempt to shoehorn these facts into a complaint under the Act has no basis in law or in logic.

As for the termination having any connection to the events outlined above, the respondent’s witness stated in his evidence that he had no knowledge of the incident involving Mr A and that he made the decision to terminate the complainant’s employment purely on the basis of her performance.

While I accept this, there were serious procedural deficits in how this aspect of the matter was handled (a fact acknowledged by the respondent at the hearing) but for which I cannot provide a remedy under this statute but I have addressed it elsewhere.

The complainant has sought to build a link between the two events, but she has not produced any evidence that does so.

Accordingly, the complaint does not succeed.

For the reasons set out above Complaint CA-00069722-004 is not upheld.

Equality