In this case, the respondent school had an acknowledged and effective dignity in the workplace policy together with a code of conduct which dealt comprehensively with the issue of sexual harassment. The respondent school provided evidence to the Equality Tribunal of the significant efforts made to investigate the teacher’s complaints of sexual harassment against students. The respondent school said in evidence that:

“without some independent evidence, from someone else present, of the fact of the impuned words (which were sexually motivated) having been uttered, the respondent could not proceed to impose a sanction on the alleged perpetrator.”

The Tribunal agreed and accepted that the teacher’s complaint of sexual harassment was correctly rejected due to the lack of independent supporting evidence. The Tribunal also very carefully considered evidence from other teachers in the school and the Tribunal concluded that it was satisfied that the school had taken measures to deal with the incidents of sexual harassment of teachers by pupils and that those measures have ensured that a culture of sexual harassment does not exist at the school.

The Tribunal concluded that the school had taken such steps as are reasonably practicable to prevent the occurrence of sexual harassment.

Notwithstanding the respondent’s correct and responsible approach to the handling of the sexual harassment complaint, the Tribunal found that the claimant teacher was victimised for raising the sexual harassment complaint in the first instance. The Tribunal said that: 

“the effectiveness of the complainant as a teacher was not a factor in the board’s decision. No criticism was made of the complainant’s ability to teach the subjects she was employed to do.” 

The director of the Tribunal, Mr Niall McCutcheon said

“it is clear to me that if the complainant had not made allegations of sexual harassment, her contract would not have been terminated. No witness could recall any other case in the school’s history of a teacher not being kept on after probation.”

Learning outcomes from this case:

* A reminder that all policies must be brought up to date to reflect the guidelines in the recent code of practice – SI number 2008/2012-Employment Equality Act 1998 (Code of Practice) Harassment) Order 2012 [See article 1019 from 4 September in the Legal-Island email vault]. A copy of the Order and Code is here:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2012/en.si.2012.0208.pdf 

* Employers to ensure that after the thorough and conclusive investigation of a complaint of sexual harassment in line with procedures, that the complainant must not be penalised or victimised for having made the complaint/s in the first place.

* Point of note – reminder that where a case involves both a discrimination and victimisation it is open to an Equality Tribunal to award up to 4 years' salary as a total compensation payment.

Full case decision:
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/Database-of-Decisions/2012/Employment-Equality-Decisions/DEC-E2012-103-Full-Case-Report.html