This case relates to claims submitted by two Hungarian ladies on the gender, marital status, sexual orientation and race grounds.  They also alleged discrimination by association, harassment and victimisation and the first named complainant also made a claim in respect of disability.

One of the complainants was employed for two and a half weeks and the other for one and a half weeks.  The complainants asserted that they experienced difficulties when the staff found out that they were a couple and in a relationship together.  They assert, inter alia, they were questioned about their sexual relationship.

As the complainant’s were actually employed the Equality Officer found that the claims in respect of access to employment were misconceived.  As they were employed for a matter of a few weeks access to promotion and regrading did not arise.  In terms of not getting the same tips as others the Equality Officer found that this was more likely because they were newly recruited trainees rather than because of any of the grounds suggested.

The Equality did not accept that the second complainant was dismissed because of her race.  As the person allegedly replacing her was female and also Hungarian it could not have been because of the second complainant’s race or gender.  In terms of the first complainant’s constructive dismissal the Equality Officer found that if she had been allowed to work in the same branch as the second complainant she would not have resigned and therefore she had not established a prima facie case of constructive dismissal.

However, the Equality Officer found that both complainants had established prima facie cases of harassment on the gender and sexual orientation grounds.  He also found that the employer had not established that it had take steps as were reasonably practicable to prevent the harassment and therefore could not avail of the statutory defence.  The Equality Officer went on “Given the sexual nature of the obscenities directed at the two complainants I find that both of them were victims of sexual harassment as well.”

It is worthy of note that the Equality Officer also stated “It is a duty on employers under the Acts to provide a workplace in which it is safe for lesbians and gay men to be open about their sexuality.”

The equality Officer found that there was no evidence of victimisation, that the claim of discrimination by association was misconceived and that the claim of the first complainant on the disability ground failed as she had not informed the respondent in sufficient detail of her medical condition.

In summary, all of the claims made by the complainants failed with the exception of the claims of sexual harassment and harassment on the gender and sexual orientation grounds.  The complainant’s were awarded €7,500 each as compensation not in the nature of pay.

Why is this case of interest?

• Do you have policies and procedures in place to prevent harassment?  Employers must have them in place if they wish to argue that they had procedures/policies in place to prevent such behaviour before it happened.
• It is also a reminder that equality applies immediately in an employment relationship and even before, in terms of access to employment.  In this case the employees were in the employment for only 1.5 and 2.5 weeks.
• Finally it specifies the duty imposed by the Acts on employers in which it is safe for lesbian and gay men to be open about their sexuality.  This is a useful reminder to assess whether your policies and procedures are sufficient in that regard.