This case concerns the Complainant’s appeal of the Adjudication Officer’s decision to the Labour Court. The Appellant contended that she was the subject of a number of incidents of sexual harassment and harassment based on her gender perpetrated by students attending her lectures on various dates from October 2014 to March 2015.

The Appellant was first subject to sexual harassment on the 10th of October 2014. She notified the Respondent that she had been sexually harassed by a large group of male students in her assigned class. She said that she had been asked explicit, coarse sexual questions and, in addition, various disgusting and explicit comments were made about male genitalia. After she reported the second sexual harassment incident, the Head of the Department sent one student for a disciplinary review.

When the sexual harassment continued, the Respondent decided to split the class. The Appellant then submitted a grievance regarding the sexual harassment as she felt the Respondent was not taking sufficient methods to deal with the matter. Following a meeting with the Respondent’s Equality Officer and the Complainant, it was agreed that the students would be provided with a Dignity at Work training.

The Respondent submitted that it took all practicable steps to avoid the occurrence of sexual harassment. The course leaders were tasked with investigating the matter by speaking to the class groups individually in order to verify the allegations. The Head of Department addressed the groups collectively and cautioned them that any further such behaviour would not be tolerated. The Respondent submitted that it had a comprehensive Dignity and Respect policy in place to deal with harassment / sexual harassment in the workplace and when the Appellant was sexually harassed, it took such steps as were reasonably practicable to prevent its recurrence.

In considering the evidence, the court noted the Appellant’s complaint was that of sexual harassment and harassment based on her gender in the workplace which the Respondent, at no time raised those matters explicitly with the class of students where the incidents occurred.

The court also noted that the Student Disciplinary Committee Court was not operational for a period of time during which the Appellant had complained of being subjected to sexual harassment. The Court held that the Respondent did not take such steps as were reasonably practicable to prevent sexual harassment and it is therefore liable for the discrimination suffered by the Complainant. The Court ordered the Respondent to pay the Appellant a sum of €10,000 for distress.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2019/september/eda1931.html