‘Victimised’ woman awarded €30,000

A FEMALE employee of a financial institution who was victimised after complaining of sexual harassment has been awarded €30,000 by the Equality Tribunal.

Her case was one of six out of seven employment cases upheld under the 1998 Employment Equality Act this month.

The woman, who was not named, complained she was discriminated against by her employer on the grounds of gender, contrary to the provisions of the 1998 Employment Equality Act, when she was sexually harassed by her manager.

The woman also complained that she was subsequently demoted and isolated after making the harassment complaint.

The institution claimed it investigated her claim of sexually harassment “carefully and fully” in accordance with its grievance procedures. While it found the manager had breached proper procedures, there had been no intention to bully or harass the woman.

However, the equality officer found the woman had suffered sexual harassment and victimisation.

The officer also found the institution’s own investigation into the matter was inadequate and contrary to its own harassment and bullying policy.

The officer awarded the woman €15,000 in compensation of the discrimination and a further €15,000 for the effects of the victimisation.

The institution was also told to ensure the woman was protected from unnecessary contact with the manager and that she was not harmed professionally from any measure in this regard. It was also ordered to review its policy on dealing with sexual harassment complaints.

Another woman, Deborah Costello, who had her second job interview for a management vacancy with a Dublin fashion shop, Pamela Scott, cancelled because she was pregnant was awarded €7,000 in compensation by the tribunal. It found she was discriminated against on the grounds of gender.

The company said Ms Costello was one of two candidates called for the second interview but it had reservations about the suitability of both candidates in terms of their managerial experience and decided not to proceed with the interviews. It also argued another factor in the decision not to proceed was the unavailability of the second manager who was to carry out the interviews.

The equality officer, however, found that the overlapping explanations for the cancellation, none of which were communicated to Ms Costello up to the day before the scheduled interview, lacked credibility.

Also, there was no attempt to contact either Ms Costello or the other candidate regarding the cancellation of the interviews before receiving a phone call from the employment agency to say that Ms Costello was pregnant. The officer was satisfied that Ms Costello had adduced prima facie evidence of discrimination on grounds of her gender by virtue of her pregnancy.