€17k award over claim of French maid’s outfit theft

A FORMER Ann Summers employee who claimed she was publicly accused of trying to steal an outfit from the adult shop has been awarded €17,000 damages for defamation of character.

The Circuit Civil Court heard how a parcel in shop assistant Michelle O’Neill’s shoulder bag led another member of staff to mistakenly assume Ms O’Neill was stealing a French maid’s black and white outfit that was sold in the shop.

Barrister Michael Fox, for Ms O’Neill, of Artane, Co Dublin, told Mr Justice Matthew Deery that the item, wrapped in a see-through plastic bag, was a black and white dress that belonged to Ms O’Neill.

He said team leader Gloria Kangstrom, who had searched Ms O’Neill’s bag in June 2010, lifted the parcel from it and asked: “A maid’s outfit?” After discovering her mistake, she said to other staff: “Oh, I thought it was a French maid’s outfit in her bag.”

Mr Fox said the words had been spoken loudly and dramatically in the presence of other employees and customers in the store at Lower O’Connell Street, Dublin, therefore defaming Ms O’Neill.

Ms O’Neill told the court that when she joined Ann Summers she signed a contract of employment in which staff agreed that, on leaving the shop every day, they would open their bags and show the contents to whoever was on the till.

She said the contract also included a clause in which staff’s shop lockers would be checked at random. The agreement specifically stated that, while another member of staff could look in the locker, they could not touch or delve into personal belongings.

On June 23, 2010, she had been leaving the store after work and had unzipped her shoulder bag so Ms Kangstrom could inspect it. Ms Kangstrom had looked into her bag, lifted out the parcel and had spoken the defamatory words.

Ms O’Neill told Joe Jeffers, counsel for Ann Summers, that the store had suffered shoplifting and that staff were also under suspicion. Each employee had received specific training on product security and dealing with suspected shoplifters.

She said she had suffered stress and humiliation as a result of the incident and had been unable to resume her work with Ann Summers. She had attended a counselling service at Beaumont Hospital.

Ms Kangstrom stated in evidence that she had not put her hand into Ms O’Neill’s bag while inspecting its contents. When cross-examined by Mr Fox she said she had reached into the bag, but only “after conducting the search”.

Mr Justice Deery said the store had a right to search employees’ bags and lockers, which had led to a loss of privacy and, some might say, a loss of dignity. “It seems to me that, in a situation where a personal search is something that has to be borne by the employee, it is incumbent on the company to ensure it is done in an appropriate manner.”

The judge said there had been a problem with theft in the store. As a result, the incident left Ms O’Neill feeling she had been cast in the role of the thief.

Mr Justice Deery said Ms Kangstrom had reached into Ms O’Neill’s bag and had not conducted the personal search in accordance with normal procedures. He was satisfied there had been a defamation of Ms O’Neill.