Hospital ordered to pay €10k to healthcare assistant wrongly suspended due to discrimination

The healthcare assistant, originally from Nigeria, had worked in the Mater as a healthcare assistant since 2001 and is an Irish citizen. File photo: Sasko Lazarov / RollingNews.ie

The Mater Hospital in Dublin has been ordered to pay €10,000 after suspending the wrong employee based on the complaints of a patient about an individual who was "very tall, dark skin, shaved head, not Irish".

Paul Agbons was suspended from his work for six days on June 6, 2025, after a patient alleged that a worker had acted in a sexually inappropriate manner during her hospital stay.

In her decision letter, adjudication officer at the Workplace Relations Commission Penelope McGrath wrote that while that description pertained to Mr Agbons in a general way, it could also fit with a dozen people in the hospital’s employment.

Ms McGrath ultimately found the decision to suspend Mr Agbons was pushed solely by the relevant directorate nurse manager, identified as ‘FH’ in the WRC case.

Mr Agbons believed FH’s actions to suspend him while skipping steps of the dismissal process were motivated by his race and skin tone. Mr Agbons, originally from Nigeria, had worked in the Mater as a healthcare assistant since 2001 and is an Irish citizen.

The commission heard that Mr Agbons had “an exemplary work record” and while the suspension only lasted six days, the effects were “long lasting". 

The Mater said: “In the context of the nature of the allegations made, the respondent had no option but to take the information provided by the complaining patient and carry out the necessary investigation.

“The description of the alleged perpetrator of the behaviour complained of was provided by the complaining patient and it was incumbent upon the hospital to utilise all possible pertinent information to ascertain what, if anything, had occurred.” 

Ms McGrath noted the content of the patient’s complaint was disturbing and rightfully raised alarm bells. 

Following the complaint, the directorate nurse manager (FH) was asked by the patient liaison manager to “carry out a preliminary screening to establish if it is possible that the alleged interactions could have happened.” 

FH did not make themselves available to the WRC. 

WRC ruling

Ms McGrath found FH’s preliminary screening was severely limited in scope and did not account for the litany of workers that could have had access to the room in which the complaining patient was staying.

“My concern thereafter is that FH overstepped what was being asked of her which was — to ascertain if it is possible that an abusive interaction could have occurred — and went into full accusatory mode and went ahead and identified a prime suspect,” Ms McGrath wrote.

“However tempting it was for FH to land on the complainant herein, there was a failure on her part to cast the net wide and thereafter go through a process of elimination.

"I have no sense that FH sought advice and I have no sense of how many people on the 3rd floor over that period of time fitted the description. All I know is that FH immediately zeroed in on the complainant.” 

Mr Agbons was at first under the impression that the complaint had been specifically levelled at him, which was not the case.

On June 10, four days after Mr Agbons’ suspension, a ‘Trust In Care’ meeting — the HSE standard procedure for dealing with patients' complaints — was held on Zoom. The committee could not progress the issue due to a lack of detail regarding the patient’s complaint. Mr Agbons was invited to return to work.

“The complainant was deeply upset at having been suspended from the workplace under such a cloud of suspicion,” Ms McGrath wrote. Ms McGrath was satisfied the case amounted to discrimination.