This decision by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) underscores a critical balance in employment law between affirming victims’ rights and ensuring awards are proportionate to both harm and employer liability. Even where sexual harassment is upheld, as in Lenianastasia Shanahan v. Roots Health Food, the reduction in remedy signals that mere wrongdoing is not always sufficient to guarantee the maximum possible damage award.

For employers, this case is a wake-up call: having policies against harassment is not enough. They must be actively enforced, complaints must be taken seriously when raised, investigations must be prompt and impartial, and corrective measures must follow. Employers who fail to act or who inadequately address complaints risk liability—and even if awards are reduced, reputational damage and legal costs remain.

For individuals experiencing harassment, the case emphasizes that even relatively short employment durations do not preclude a successful claim, provided there is sufficient evidence of harassment and employer mismanagement. Documenting incidents (date, content, witnesses), raising issues through internal grievance procedures, and seeking legal advice early can strengthen one’s case.

Finally, legally, this ruling may influence future WRC decisions: the standard for “persistent unwanted conduct” remains significant, but the quantum of compensation depends heavily on the context—severity, employer knowledge, remedial actions taken (if any), and the period over which misconduct occurred. Both employers and employees should view this as a reminder that transparency, responsiveness, and good faith efforts to resolve issues matter greatly when disputes reach adjudication.

In Lenianastasia Shanahan V Roots Health Food (ADJ – 00054550) the Complainant claimed that she experienced sexual harassment in her employment with ‘Roots’ under section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 – 2015.

Facts: The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in March 2024 as a server/assistant production. She worked for 16 weeks until her resignation in July 2024. The Complainant claimed that during this period she was subject to persistent unwanted conduct by a male colleague (“MR”) including sexualised comments, repeated requests to go out with him and remarks on her appearance.