The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a Foundation Programme Coordinator in the International Office on the 27th of November 2017 and her employment terminated on the 5th of November 2018. When she joined the International Office, the International Office Director did not make her aware that there were several difficulties within the programme such as assessments, applications recruitment, as the programme was not recognised by the University’s Faculty or Registry.

When she attempted to raise these concerns to the International Office Director, he became irate. The Complainant had a tense relationship with the International Office Director.  He blamed her for legacy issues that were present before the Complainant had started the job. He became angry and aggressive towards her and did not explain why he was annoyed with her. On one occasion, after a probationary meeting that took place the IOD made an inappropriate comment about an abstract painting on the wall of the office which the Complainant felt was sexually explicit. The Complainant felt very upset about this comment and reported it to management.

The Complainant also raised concerns about bullying and harassment and IOD’s unprofessional and aggressive behaviour towards her including his conduct of the probation process.  The probationary process continued without the attendance of IOD but resulted in the Complainant’s dismissal for failure to pass the probationary period.

The Respondent, DCU, argued the alleged lewd comment was not an act of sexual harassment and was not directed at the Complainant and was made in the presence of another person who did not make any complaint in relation to the alleged comment. The Respondent argued that the alleged comment therefore had a completely disproportionate impact on the Complainant. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant failed to establish any evidence of sufficient weight from which it could be concluded that she was discriminated against.

The Adjudication Officer found that the Complainant had established a prima facie case of sexual harassment – the comment was of a sexual nature, was directed at the Complainant, was gender specific and inappropriate and therefore falls within the definition of sexual harassment under section 14A of the Acts.  While it was submitted that it was not the intention to cause distress to the Complaint, the Code of Practice provides that intention is not a defence, and it is the effect on the employees that is relevant. The Adjudication Officer was satisfied from the Complainant’s evidence that she found the comment offensive and that it violated her dignity and ordered the Respondent pay compensation in the sum of €27,500 to the Complainant.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2021/may/adj-00020428.html