A sexual harassment complaint exposed gaps in workplace protection, with the alleged harasser remaining in post for over a year despite reported misconduct. A stark reminder of the importance of timely action and robust safeguards.

The Complainant stated that she had lodged a sexual harassment complaint on the gender ground after a series of escalating incidents perpetrated by the Senior Pharmacist. She submitted that matters culminated in June 2024, when he showed her an image of naked male genitalia while they were alone in the pharmacy office. She reported the incident to her line manager the following Monday. She asserted that the harasser later admitted the conduct in writing and apologised. They t maintained that despite her complaint, the Senior Pharmacist remained in his post for over a year, during which she had been repeatedly moved and forced to avoid core areas of the workplace. She said she felt professionally sidelined, unable to attend key meetings or use the main dispensary. She outlined earlier inappropriate comments, sexualised remarks, and obstructive behaviour dating back to 2023, and explained that repeated unauthorised contact from him caused her significant distress and two periods of stress-related leave.

The Respondent submitted that it was required to afford the Senior Pharmacist due process and natural justice. It stated that an investigation had taken place and a report had recently issued, with findings partly in the Complainant’s favour. The Respondent accepted that protective measures had been put in place, though it acknowledged that these had not fully prevented contact. The Respondent’s witness explained that a verbal complaint was followed by a written one and that the matter was referred to central HR screening. She stated that the Senior Pharmacist was given an opportunity to respond and that she had spoken to him several times about breaching boundaries. She accepted that suspension had not been considered. The Respondent acknowledged shortcomings in its handling of the matter and accepted that more could have been done earlier to ensure the Complainant’s safety and wellbeing.

The Adjudicating Officer found the Complainant to be a credible witness. Although the investigation report was not furnished, the Adjudicator accepted the Complainant’s account of the full series of incidents, including explicit sexual imagery, sexualised comments, inappropriate physical obstruction, and repeated breaches of safeguarding directions. They held that the Complainant had established facts from which discrimination could be presumed. The Respondent failed to rebut that presumption. It was undisputed that the Senior Pharmacist remained in place for over a year after the complaint, despite admitting key incidents and repeatedly ignoring safeguarding instructions. The Adjudicator found that the employer had not taken reasonably practicable steps to prevent the harassment as required by s.15 of the Act. The Adjudicator further noted that the Complainant was repeatedly moved, isolated and disadvantaged. The year-long delay in concluding the investigation, coupled with the failure to suspend the harasser or enforce protective measures effectively, denied the Complainant a safe working environment and an effective remedy. Accordingly, the Adjudicator concluded that she was sexually harassed and discriminated against. They awarded €86,717.

Employers should:

• Treat sexual-harassment allegations as urgent safety concerns, implementing immediate protective measures that prioritise the complainant. This may include precautionary suspension of the alleged harasser, rota separation, and secure workspace arrangements. However, never actions that disadvantage the complainant. Early HR involvement, clear communication, and access to a support contact are essential to prevent further harm and demonstrate procedural fairness.
  
  
• Investigate promptly, follow policy rigorously, and conclude within a reasonable timeframe. Employers should gather evidence without delay, interview witnesses, document all steps, and escalate matters where misconduct is admitted or safeguarding measures are breached. If internal HR resources are unavailable or conflicted, an independent investigator should be appointed. Prolonged delays or weak enforcement will be viewed as a denial of natural justice.
  
  
• Prove they took all reasonably practicable steps to prevent harassment. This requires strong policies, regular staff training, visible reporting channels, and consistent disciplinary enforcement. Safeguarding must focus on restricting the perpetrator and not the complainant.

The full case can be found here.