The High Court awarded Bridget Sweeney €78,625 in damages after finding that a school principal’s continuing bullying and harassment caused her clinical depression and that the school’s board failed to take reasonable steps to address the situation.
In a judgment delivered on 24 March 2011, Mr Justice Herbert found that Dr C. bullied and harassed Ms Sweeney after she returned to work at Ballinteer Community School in March 2007. The judge also found the Board of Management vicariously liable for Dr C.’s acts and directly in breach of its duty of care as her employer.
The dispute followed Ms Sweeney’s unsuccessful application for one of four senior posts in 2005. The judgment records that an earlier investigation under the relevant schools’ code, upheld on appeal, had found that the decisions she complained of did not amount to bullying or harassment. The High Court said Ms Sweeney could not challenge those findings in this case.
The court nevertheless considered later events. It found that Dr C.’s conduct after her return to work included marginalising her and treating her with hostility. On 26 November 2007, during a dispute over use of a computer room, Dr C. publicly disparaged her in front of parents. The judge found that his behaviour on that occasion was oppressive and bullying, despite Ms Sweeney’s own provocative conduct during the incident.
The judge also found that Dr C. arranged covert surveillance of Ms Sweeney during school hours by a private investigator in February 2008, without the board’s knowledge or approval. The investigator followed her as she travelled to a resource centre and made home visits. The judge held that the surveillance amounted to serious harassment and that the board was liable because it was connected to Dr C.’s work as principal. The court was not satisfied that Ms Sweeney proved Dr C. personally followed her on two dates in September 2008, contrary to a court order.
On the medical evidence, the court found that Ms Sweeney suffered clinical depression caused by the continuing bullying and harassment. It rejected her claim that she had established post-traumatic stress disorder as a consequence of Dr C.’s conduct. The judgment said she had recovered from the serious depressive illness by June 2010, though she remained anxious at times and experienced occasional flashbacks and nightmares.
The court awarded €60,000 for personal injuries to the date of judgment, including €5,000 in aggravated damages; €15,000 for possible future personal injuries; and €13,625 in agreed special damages. It declined to award punitive damages.