Where harassment happens at work in Ireland, employment equality law places clear obligations on employers to prevent it and to deal effectively with concerns when they arise.
That legal framework is potentially relevant to the allegations of harassment now being reported within the National Ambulance Service.
[Section 14A of the Employment Equality Act 1998] Section 14A of the Employment Equality Act 1998 provides that harassment or sexual harassment in the course of employment can constitute discrimination by the employer. Where the conduct is carried out by another employee, the employer may have a defence if it can prove that it took steps that were reasonably practicable to prevent it.
That means an employer’s policies, training, reporting structures and response to complaints can become important when allegations of workplace harassment arise.
That question is now particularly relevant to the National Ambulance Service.
On 10 September 2026, [RTÉ reported that more than 30 women had come forward to Prime Time] RTÉ: Over 30 women allege harassment and misogyny in ambulance service with accounts of sexual harassment, unwanted physical contact, misogynistic behaviour, bullying and intimidation within the service, ahead of a Prime Time investigation scheduled for broadcast that evening.
Coleman Legal LLP acts for more than 100 current and former members of the Defence Forces, and some of the issues emerging from the ambulance service bear similarities to what our clients have described about working within a hierarchical, uniformed organisation.
What RTÉ reported
RTÉ reported on 10 September 2026 that more than 30 women, including current and former paramedics and emergency medical technicians, had spoken to Prime Time about their experiences within the National Ambulance Service.
The programme was scheduled to be broadcast on RTÉ One and the RTÉ Player at 9.35pm on Thursday 10 September 2026.
The National Ambulance Service is part of the HSE and employs more than 2,400 staff nationwide.
The women described sexual comments by more senior colleagues, unwanted physical contact, inappropriate remarks about the bodies of staff and patients, and experiences of bullying or intimidation.
Several described behaviour which they believed had been tolerated within the service rather than properly challenged.
One account concerned comments made to an intern about her underwear, together with allegations of inappropriate touching. Other women told Prime Time that they had been reluctant to complain because they feared consequences for their careers.
RTÉ also reported on concerns surrounding the structure and culture of the organisation.
Freedom of Information documents obtained by Prime Time showed that, in one area of operations, four new heads of service and eight new general managers had been appointed. All twelve were men.
An unpublished 2021 HSE review of the service’s leadership team identified mistrust, a negative workplace culture and negative leadership styles. It also referred to a traditional command-and-control culture and recorded concerns that inappropriate behaviours, including potential bullying and harassment, had not been called out.
David Hall, CEO of Lifeline Ambulance Service and a former member of the Pre-Hospital Emergency Care Council, described the National Ambulance Service to Prime Time as historically male-dominated and having a semi-militaristic structure.
In response, the HSE said that all staff have the right to feel safe, respected and valued at work. It also acknowledged that staff feedback continues to raise concerns relating to bullying, discrimination, harassment and levels of trust within the organisation.
Robert Morton is the Director of the National Ambulance Service.
The HSE has also announced a new culture initiative, independently chaired by retired Major General Maureen O’Brien. The six-month programme is expected to include an organisation-wide survey, workshops, staff interviews and site visits.
It is important to be precise about what that initiative is. It has been announced as a workplace culture initiative rather than a statutory tribunal or inquiry. It does not, by itself, determine liability, make findings against any individual or establish an entitlement to compensation.
What Irish law requires of an employer
The following sets out the general position under Irish employment equality law. It is not a statement about the individual allegations reported by RTÉ, none of which should be treated as having been established by a court or tribunal.
Harassment and sexual harassment at work are addressed under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2015.
[Section 14A of the Employment Equality Act 1998] Read Section 14A defines harassment as unwanted conduct related to one of the discriminatory grounds protected by the legislation. Sexual harassment is separately defined as unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.
In either case, the statutory test considers whether the conduct had the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.
There is an important distinction here.
Not every allegation of workplace bullying automatically amounts to harassment under the Employment Equality Acts. Non-sexual harassment must be connected to one of the discriminatory grounds covered by the legislation. Sexual harassment is separately protected under section 14A.
Section 14A can make an employer legally responsible where an employee is harassed or sexually harassed by another employee in the course of employment.
The legislation provides a defence where the employer proves that it took such steps as were reasonably practicable to prevent the harassment or sexual harassment concerned.
That assessment goes beyond simply asking whether an organisation has a written policy.
The current [Code of Practice on Sexual Harassment and Harassment at Work, S.I. No. 106/2022] Code of Practice on Sexual Harassment and Harassment at Work gives practical guidance on preventing harassment, making effective procedures available to employees and dealing with problems when they arise so that they do not recur.
The Code therefore looks at both prevention and response: whether appropriate policies and procedures existed, whether staff knew about them, whether complaints could realistically be made, and whether concerns were properly addressed.
The Code is admissible in evidence in relevant proceedings before a court, the Workplace Relations Commission and the Labour Court.
A complaint under the Employment Equality Acts will ordinarily be made to the Workplace Relations Commission.
The normal time limit is six months from the alleged occurrence, or the most recent occurrence, of the harassment or discrimination. The period may be extended to a maximum of twelve months where reasonable cause for the delay is established.
Different legal routes can involve different time limits
This is one of the most important practical points for anyone considering their position.
Depending on the circumstances, workplace harassment may potentially give rise to more than one type of legal claim.
One possible route is an employment equality complaint under the Employment Equality Acts.
Another, where a person has suffered a recognised personal injury such as psychiatric injury and the necessary legal elements can be established, may be a civil personal injuries action based on negligence or breach of duty.
These routes have different legal tests and different limitation rules.
An employment equality complaint will normally have to be referred to the Workplace Relations Commission within six months of the most recent relevant occurrence, subject to the possibility of an extension to twelve months for reasonable cause.
For a non-clinical personal injuries action, the general limitation period is two years from the date on which the cause of action accrued or the person’s statutory date of knowledge, whichever is later.
The [Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991] Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991 – date of knowledgesets out what “date of knowledge” means.
It is not automatically the date on which someone receives a psychiatric diagnosis.
The statutory test considers when the person first knew, or is treated by law as having knowledge of, matters including the existence and significance of the injury and its possible connection with the act or omission said to have caused it.
For that reason, symptoms, medical treatment, diagnosis and what the person understood about the cause of their injury can all potentially be relevant when the limitation period is assessed.
There is another important qualification.
The employment equality and common-law routes should not be treated as completely independent.
The 2022 Code expressly identifies restrictions on pursuing redress for the same harassment complaint through both Employment Equality Act proceedings and common-law proceedings once certain procedural steps have been taken.
That makes the order in which proceedings are considered potentially important.
Where a civil personal injuries claim falls within the remit of the [Injuries Resolution Board] Injuries Resolution Board – Making a Claim, an application will generally have to be made to the Board before court proceedings can be commenced.
Someone who believes a WRC deadline has passed should therefore not automatically assume that every possible legal option has also expired.
Equally, the existence of a different limitation period does not mean that a civil claim necessarily exists.
The facts, the nature of the conduct, the medical evidence, causation, the legal duty involved and the applicable dates all have to be considered individually.
Anyone in that position should take advice on the specific circumstances before assuming that a claim is either within or outside time.
Why this mirrors issues we have seen in the Defence Forces
Coleman Legal LLP acts for more than 100 current and former members of the Defence Forces in connection with Defence Forces matters.
Reading the accounts reported by RTÉ, some of the organisational issues described will be familiar to people who have worked in other highly structured and hierarchical services.
The [Defence Forces Tribunal of Inquiry] Defence Forces Tribunal of Inquiry, whose Sole Member is Ms Justice Ann Power, is examining the effectiveness of the processes within the Defence Forces for dealing with complaints of abuse and the culture surrounding the making of those complaints.
Its period of investigation runs from 1 January 1983 to 20 June 2024.
The Tribunal was formally established on 20 June 2024 following a recommendation of the Independent Review Group on dignity and equality issues in the Defence Forces.
The Government had approved the establishment of the Tribunal in 2023 after the Independent Review Group identified the need for a statutory fact-finding process.
The experiences brought into public discussion by the RTÉ Women of Honour documentary in 2021 formed an important part of the wider debate that preceded those reforms, but the Tribunal itself was formally established following the Independent Review Group process.
Public evidential hearings began on 3 June 2026.
The significant point about the Tribunal is its subject matter.
According to the Tribunal itself, its principal task is to examine how complaints of abuse were handled within the Defence Forces. Its remit includes discrimination, bullying, harassment, psychological harm, sexual harassment and sexual misconduct.
The first module of public hearings specifically examined whether complaints of abuse were actively deterred or whether there was a culture that discouraged people from making them.
That puts the effectiveness of complaints systems themselves under scrutiny: what happened when concerns arose, whether people felt able to report them, how complaints were handled and whether the structures in place were capable of dealing with them effectively.
There are obvious limits to any comparison between two different organisations.
But certain features described in the RTÉ reporting — hierarchy, a historically male-dominated environment, operational dependence between colleagues and concerns about whether people feel safe making complaints — are also issues that can be important when examining how complaints systems operate within uniformed organisations.
Those features do not establish that misconduct occurred.
They can, however, affect whether employees feel able to report inappropriate behaviour and whether an organisation’s procedures work effectively in practice.
What this means for people working in the ambulance service
Nothing reported by RTÉ determines the outcome of any individual case, and no one should treat the allegations reported publicly as establishing their own legal position.
What the reporting does provide is a reason for anyone affected to understand the options that may be available to them.
- Keep a record where possible. Note dates, what happened, who was present, any messages or emails connected with it and whether the matter was reported. Contemporaneous records can assist when events later have to be reconstructed.
- Consider the internal process where it is safe and appropriate to do so. Internal reporting can create an important record of what the employer knew and how it responded. There may also be circumstances in which a person does not feel able to make an internal complaint, which should be discussed with an adviser.
- Keep track of relevant medical information. If the experience has affected your mental health, record when symptoms began, when you sought medical assistance, when any diagnosis was made and when you first understood that the injury might be connected with what happened at work. The legal date of knowledge is determined by a statutory test and is not automatically the date of diagnosis.
- Do not assume that one missed deadline determines every possible route. Employment equality proceedings and civil personal injuries proceedings have different rules, but they can also interact. Advice should be obtained before proceedings are commenced wherever possible.
How Coleman Legal LLP can help
Norman Spicer is a Senior Solicitor at Coleman Legal LLP working in civil litigation, Defence Forces matters, multi-party actions and claims involving survivors of abuse.
Before entering legal practice, Norman served in the Defence Forces, giving him direct experience of military life and the realities of working within a uniformed and hierarchical organisation. He has practised in civil and personal litigation since 2013.
For someone considering a claim, the first step is to understand exactly what happened and when.
We can review the chronology, employment and personnel records, complaint documentation, correspondence and any internal investigation material that may be relevant.
Where psychiatric injury forms part of a potential civil claim, appropriate independent medical evidence may be required to address the nature of the injury, diagnosis, prognosis and causation.
The legal team can then separately assess the applicable limitation period, including the statutory date-of-knowledge provisions, and advise on which legal route, if any, is appropriate to the circumstances.
Because Employment Equality Act proceedings and common-law proceedings can interact, that assessment should take place before a particular route is pursued wherever possible.
Coleman Legal LLP is a litigation practice based in Dublin 1, Ireland, advising clients in Defence Forces, personal injury, abuse and institutional claims across the Republic of Ireland.
Frequently asked questions
What did RTÉ report about the National Ambulance Service?
RTÉ reported on 10 September 2026 that more than 30 women, including current and former paramedics and emergency medical technicians, had spoken to Prime Time about experiences of sexual harassment, misogyny, bullying or intimidation within the National Ambulance Service.
RTÉ also reported that an unpublished 2021 review of the service’s leadership team had identified mistrust, a negative workplace culture, negative leadership styles and a traditional command-and-control culture.
Is an employer legally responsible for harassment carried out by a colleague in Ireland?
Potentially, yes.
Section 14A of the Employment Equality Act 1998 provides that harassment or sexual harassment by another employee in the course of employment can constitute discrimination by the employer.
The employer has a statutory defence where it proves that it took steps that were reasonably practicable to prevent the harassment or sexual harassment concerned.
The particular facts of each case, including the employer’s policies, procedures and actions, have to be considered.
Is all workplace bullying covered by the Employment Equality Acts?
No.
Sexual harassment is specifically covered by section 14A.
For other harassment to fall within the Employment Equality Acts, the unwanted conduct must be related to one of the discriminatory grounds protected by the legislation.
Workplace bullying that is not sexual and is not connected with one of those grounds may fall outside the Employment Equality Acts, although other workplace or legal remedies may potentially apply depending on the circumstances.
How long do I have to bring a harassment complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission?
A complaint of harassment or sexual harassment under the Employment Equality Acts will normally have to be made within six months of the alleged occurrence or most recent occurrence.
The Workplace Relations Commission may extend the period to a maximum of twelve months where reasonable cause for the delay is established.
Is the time limit for a civil psychiatric injury claim also six months?
No.
A non-clinical personal injuries action is generally subject to a two-year limitation period running from the date on which the cause of action accrued or the statutory date of knowledge, whichever is later.
The date of knowledge is a legal test and is not automatically the date on which someone receives a psychiatric diagnosis.
The circumstances of an individual case should be assessed before any conclusion is reached about whether a claim is within time.
Can I bring both a WRC harassment claim and a civil personal injury claim?
Potentially different forms of proceedings can arise from workplace events, but the routes are not completely independent.
The 2022 Code of Practice identifies restrictions on pursuing Employment Equality Act redress and common-law damages in respect of the same harassment complaint once particular proceedings have been commenced or have reached certain stages.
For that reason, legal advice should ideally be obtained before deciding which route to pursue.
Is the National Ambulance Service under investigation?
The HSE has announced a six-month workplace culture initiative within the National Ambulance Service, independently chaired by retired Major General Maureen O’Brien.
The programme is expected to involve an organisation-wide survey, workshops, staff interviews and site visits. It is a culture initiative rather than a statutory Tribunal of Inquiry and does not itself determine civil liability or compensation.
What is the Defence Forces Tribunal of Inquiry examining?
The Defence Forces Tribunal of Inquiry, led by Sole Member Ms Justice Ann Power, is examining the effectiveness of complaints processes within the Defence Forces and the culture surrounding complaints of abuse.
Its period of investigation runs from 1 January 1983 to 20 June 2024. Its remit includes discrimination, bullying, harassment, psychological harm, sexual harassment and sexual misconduct.
The Tribunal’s public evidential hearings began on 3 June 2026.
