Employers should have clear, fair and just processes and policies in place to deal with sexual harassment complaints. If such policies are not in place the employer may be exposed to potential claims from the alleged victim and/or the alleged perpetrator as well as the reputational risks associated with such claims.

What is sexual harassment? 

Sexual harassment is defined under Section 14A (7) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998, as amended ("the EEA"):

"any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, 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."

The IHREC Code of Practice on Sexual Harassment and Harassment at Work 2022 which is non statutory in nature also provides practical guidance in relation to the prevention of employment-related sexual harassment, harassment and the steps that should be taken to deal with an issue and prevent its recurrence.

Defences to Claims 

If allegations are made by an employee regarding sexual harassment the employer must apply their Sexual Harassment or Dignity at Work Policy to both parties (the individual making the allegations and the alleged perpetrator) fairly in dealing with that complaint. If following an investigation, it is determined there was wrongdoing the employer should consider and apply the appropriate sanction, which can include disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.

Section 14A(2) of the Act provides that it shall be a defence to an equality claim under the EEA for an employer to show that it took such steps as are reasonably practicable to prevent sexual harassment from occurring in the first place, and in circumstances where such harassment has occurred, prove that it took action to reverse its effect.

If a sanction of dismissal is applied to a perpetrator, an employer will need to prove that there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal in order to successfully defend any unfair dismissal claim that might issue.

Recent cases  

We have considered a number of recent cases involving sexual harassment which came before the Workplace Relations Commission ("WRC") under both equality and unfair dismissal legislation and the learnings for employers from those cases.

Defending a dismissal decision arising from a sexual harassment complaint 

Nkemka Patrick Okachi v Sodexo Ireland Limited ADJ-00045306/2025 

In this case the Complainant issued an unfair dismissal claim, which arose on foot of a sexual harassment complaint made against him. It was the Complainant’s evidence that he was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent after being falsely accused of sexual harassment. He commenced work with the Respondent on 5 May 2014 and was dismissed on 17 February 2023 from his employment as a Cleaning Supervisor.

The complaint involved an interaction the Complainant had with a female colleague in the gym. The Complainant recollected that he complimented his colleague and that she hugged him at the end of the conversation. He denied there was anything of a sexual nature. When he attended work the next day, his manager explained there had been a complaint made against him. The Complainant was suspended from work with immediate effect pending an investigation.  The Complainant was ultimately dismissed from his role following an investigation and disciplinary process.

The Complainant succeeded with his unfair dismissal claim due to a failure by the Respondent to follow its own policies, an unfair investigation, flawed procedures, hearsay evidence and the application of an entirely disproportionate sanction. Reinstatement was ordered. In making this award the Adjudicator referenced the Complainant’s long service (8 years) and the damage to his reputation.

Given the nature of the allegations, it is noteworthy that the Adjudicator considered reinstatement appropriate. In this case the Adjudicator focused on the fact that the complaint did not originate from a fellow employee of the Respondent or someone with whom the Complainant worked directly, as well as the ability of the Respondent to deploy the alleged perpetrator to an alternative work site.

Having policies in place after the alleged incident is not enough to rely on Section 14A Defence. 

Lenianastasia  Shanahan v Roots Health Food - ADJ-00054550/2025 

In this case the Complainant brought a claim under the Employment Equality Act for sexual harassment. The Complainant claimed she experienced sexual harassment involving persistent comments by a co-worker which involved him asking her to go out with him. Her concerns were increased given the confined workspace and the lack of working CCTV cameras in the establishment. These comments were ignored by her manager who was the owner of the Respondent. No grievance was lodged by the employee at this point.

The Complainant left the company on 20 July 2024. The Complainant informed the Respondent of her concerns on 25 September 2024. The Respondent proceeded to investigate her concerns in line with their bullying and harassment policy. The investigation found that there was insufficient evidence to corroborate the allegations. The alleged perpetrator was not questioned as part of the investigation, as he was no longer an employee of the Respondent. The Complainant filed a complaint with the WRC prior to the internal investigation being completed. The Adjudicator was critical of the investigation. He highlighted that the investigator had a duty to evaluate the submissions of the Complainant and the other parties, which was not done in this case. He also found that the investigator completely overlooked the significance of the repeated nature of the alleged incidents, which added weight to the Complainant’s assertions.

The Respondent in this case sought to rely on the Section 14A defence, the reasonable steps defence. That defence failed as there were no policies in place that would prevent the employee from carrying out the impugned acts at the time the alleged allegations took place. The Respondent only put policies in place after they received the complaint. The defence failed as the Adjudicator found that no ‘reasonable and practicable steps’ had been put in place or measures taken. He made it clear that steps taken subsequent to any alleged breaches of the Act do not provide a defence to an employer.

The Adjudicator was also critical of the Complainant's failure to engage in the investigation and reduced her award to €5,000.

Punitive awards arising from sexual harassment claims 

A Female Complainant v The Health Service Executive ADJ-00055810/2025 

In this case the Complainant issued an equality claim on grounds of gender, which arose on foot of alleged sexual harassment by a colleague. The Complainant worked as a pharmacist in a hospital setting. She alleged that the Senior Pharmacist was involved in a series of sexual harassment incidents which culminated in a situation where the alleged perpetrator showed her a picture of naked male genitalia while they were alone in the pharmacy office together. The Complainant lodged a complaint with her line manager.

The alleged perpetrator continued to attend the workplace for more than a year whilst the investigation was taking place. Safeguards were put in place by the Respondent but the alleged perpetrator repeatedly breached these safeguards without any repercussion. As a result, the Complainant went on stress related sick leave on a number of  occasions.

The Adjudication Officer found that the Complainant had made out a prima facie case of  discrimination.  The  Adjudicator found in the Complainant's favour and awarded the Complainant compensation equivalent to 52 weeks remuneration, totalling €86,717 for the effects of the discrimination.

In making this substantial award the Adjudicator highlighted that this was a case where "the complainant’s rights seem to have been forgotten" with "the only practical actions taken by the respondent during a more than 12-month period seem to have been to move the complainant repeatedly". The high award was made to dissuade any potential harassers, persuade the employer to comply with the legislation and in the Adjudicator's view was proportionate to the infringement under the Act.

Takeaways  

These cases highlight the multi-faceted risks arising when addressing sexual harassment complaints made in a workplace setting. Employers should consider taking these steps to mitigate against these risks:  

• Employers should have a workplace anti-harassment and sexual harassment policy that complies with the IHREC Code of Practice on Sexual Harassment and Harassment at Work 2022, which should be adhered to if a complaint arises.
  
• Employers should ensure their managers and employees understand their policies and provide sufficient training to staff.  
  
• Employers should be live to their obligations to both the employee making the complaint and the alleged perpetrator and ensure due process, natural justice and fairness is afforded to all those involved in the alleged incident.  
  
• Employers should consider the risk of the alleged behaviour reoccurring and should carefully assess whether suspension of the alleged perpetrator could be justified.  
  
• Investigations should be completed as soon as possible.
  
• Employers should consider what, if any safeguarding measures should be applied while the investigation is completed e.g  temporary redeployment.
  
• Given the reputational damage attached to a dismissal on foot of sexual harassment allegations, this sanction should be risk assessed to ensure it is proportionate to the offence and that other lesser sanctions have been considered.  
  
• Employers will struggle to defend a matter if they are relying on a policy that was established after an incident has occurred.  
  
• Reinstatement remains a risk in some unfair dismissal cases, particularly if the employer can redeploy the alleged perpetrator to another location.