The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal by the Board of Management of St. Anne’s School against a High Court finding that it was liable for workplace bullying and harassment of special needs assistant Una Ruffley.
The High Court had awarded Ms. Ruffley €255,276 in damages, plus costs. The appeal court held that the disciplinary process was unfair and seriously flawed, but that the conduct did not amount to bullying under the applicable legal definition.
The dispute began after Ms. Ruffley locked the Sensory Room door while working with a pupil on 14 September 2009. The school was concerned about child safety. Ms. Ruffley said other assistants sometimes locked the door and that there had been no instruction against doing so. A separate concern arose when she incorrectly recorded a pupil’s progress on a monitoring form.
The Board imposed a severe warning, which the judgment described as a sanction just below dismissal. Ms. Ruffley challenged it, arguing that the process was unfair, the school had not expressly prohibited locking the door and the sanction was too severe. The appeal judgment records that the school did not carry out a meaningful investigation of her appeal. The High Court found that the school’s treatment persisted and undermined her dignity at work. Ms. Ruffley later went on certified sick leave with work-related stress and had not returned to work by the time of the appeal.
The Court of Appeal accepted that the school had denied her due process and that the punishment was too severe. It said the school should have investigated her account that other assistants also locked the door, which could have provided substantial mitigation. But the court considered the disciplinary action to have arisen from genuine concerns about child protection, rather than a sustained campaign to humiliate or intimidate her. It concluded that the incidents did not constitute repeated inappropriate behaviour undermining her dignity at work.
The school’s separate challenge to the finding that Ms. Ruffley suffered a psychiatric injury caused by the events failed. The appeal court said the High Court judge was entitled to accept medical evidence from her GP and a consultant psychiatrist.
However, the court removed €47,000 awarded for future loss of earnings. It found that this loss had not been claimed and had no evidential basis. The court therefore allowed the appeal and reduced the damages by that amount. The judgment does not state the resulting total award.