St James's Hospital apologises to trans woman
In a public statement made before the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) this afternoon, the hospital acknowledged there is a "lacuna in the care pathways" for people in her position.
Its management has apologised for the "unsatisfactory and upsetting" experience she faced and undertook to meet with a trans advocacy group to discuss its concerns.
The patient, Paige Behan, brought a statutory complaint against the hospital's board alleging that she was discriminated against in breach of the Equal Status Act 2000 when she came in seeking emergency treatment on 16 August last year.
Her complaint has now been resolved by agreement.
The case opened before adjudication officer David James Murphy this afternoon, following a short adjournment for talks between the parties.
Ms Behan's barrister, Michael Kinsley BL, appearing instructed by solicitor Seamus Hempenstall of Daly Hempenstall LLP said: "The matter has been resolved and the only action required is that a public statement be read out by the hospital."
The statement was then read out by counsel for the board of St James's Hospital, Mairead McKenna SC, who was instructed by Arthur Cox in the matter.
"St James's Hospital acknowledges there is a lacuna in the care pathways available for patients who have received gender-affirming surgery abroad," Ms McKenna said.
"[The hospital] apologises to Paige Behan for the unsatisfactory and upsetting experience she had during her attendance at the emergency department on 16 August 2024. The hospital deeply regrets the upset caused to Ms Behan," Ms McKenna continued.
"St James's Hospital is committed to learning from Paige Behan's experience at the hospital and has agreed to meet with Transgender Equality Network Ireland (TENI) at Paige Behan's request to discuss the concerns regarding the care available to patients who are returning from abroad following gender-affirming surgery," she concluded.
The adjudicator, Mr Murphy noted the withdrawal of the equal status complaint pursuant to an agreement between the parties.
He praised the "hard work" of the litigants in coming to the agreement, and commended their commitment to "improving the service to everyone's benefit" before closing the hearing.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
a day ago
- Irish Times
‘Burned out' bra saleswoman wins €15,800 for constructive dismissal
A lingerie saleswoman who said she was forced to quit her job of nearly 20 years over the health impact of workplace stress at due to a 'toxic' work environment at a Dublin department store has won €15,800 for constructive dismissal. Karrin Breslin was awarded the sum on foot of a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 against Chantelle Lingerie Ltd, the operator of a concession in the lingerie department of the unidentified store. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) awarded Ms Breslin her full losses after ruling that the international lingerie brand repudiated her contract of employment by failing to address grievances about understaffing and rostering while her health deteriorated over the course of two years. It was submitted on behalf of Ms Breslin – an employee of the brand since 2004 – that when the department store reopened in May 2021 following the Covid-19 lockdown, her section was down to 12 staff with just two full-time, compared with 10 full-timers out of 17 before the pandemic. READ MORE The tribunal heard Ms Breslin had moved from north Co Dublin to Co Wexford during the pandemic closure. She asked at that stage to be given a set working day of 9am to 5.30pm, she said. Her employer's response was that 'this was not a request that could be granted given the opening hours of the shop and the need for a fair departmental roster', the tribunal was told. The tribunal was told that the department store, rather than the lingerie brand, was responsible for setting the roster governing Ms Breslin's working hours. 'I feel my mental and physical health has deteriorated ... I don't have a good work/life balance and it's going to get worse due to the late closing times coming back again,' she wrote. Ms Breslin's case was that her job was made 'overwhelming and physically hard' because of these issues and that she began to experience anxiety, low mood, high blood pressure and gastrointestinal problems 'as a result of work-related stress'. Following a medical absence in June 2022, Ms Breslin again wrote to her employer and set out that because the department was so 'understaffed' that sales were being lost because customers were walking out without being served. Her employer's position was this was 'a commercial point and not a personal grievance'. Ms Breslin had seven periods of certified medical leave between January 2022 and the summer of 2023, the tribunal heard. In an exchange of emails with her employer during her fifth period of medical leave in June 2023, Ms Breslin said she believed her illness was 'work-related'. 'There are major obstacles stopping me from doing a good job and this has been going on for years. It's got far worse in the last 4 months and definitely having a negative impact on my working life due to a stressful and sometimes toxic work environment,' she wrote. In responding correspondence, she was told: 'I am hoping you can get to the bottom of your sickness so you feel better,' the WRC heard. The tribunal heard that Ms Breslin worked her last shift on 25th June 2023 and ultimately did not return to work before she tendered her resignation on 31st October that year. Chantelle's managing director, who gave evidence, said she had assumed Ms Breslin would return to her job when she got better and that her resignation 'was pleasant and made no mention of issues or other employees' behaviour'. When it was put to her in cross-examination that Ms Breslin had told her she was 'burned out', the managing director said she 'understood there was an issue' of work-related stress but that she 'did not relate this' to Ms Breslin's resignation. Asked what she had done to respond to the staffing issues raised by Ms Breslin, the managing director said these were 'a matter for the shop'. In her decision, adjudicator Patricia Owens wrote Ms Breslin had been raising 'serious concerns for her physical and mental health' starting in October 2021. While the managing director made efforts to resolve 'minor issues' for Ms Breslin around medical certs and annual leave, 'more complex matters' around roster problems and staff shortages 'were never addressed', Ms Owens wrote. 'I consider that the respondent failed in its duty of care to the complainant to protect her health, safety and wellbeing while at work,' Ms Owens wrote. She considered the firm's failure to respond adequately to amount to 'repudiation of contract', upholding Ms Breslin's unfair dismissal claim. Ms Owens awarded the claimant €15,800, her full losses for five months' unemployment. A further complaint of disability discrimination under the Employment Equality Act was ruled out of time by the Commission. Ms Breslin was represented by Aisling Irish of Parker Law Solicitors in the case, while human resources consultancy Tom Smyth and Associates appeared for the employer.
Irish Daily Mirror
7 days ago
- Irish Daily Mirror
Practice must pay €10k to patient removed from medical card list after complaint
A Clare-based medical practice has been ordered to pay compensation of €10,000 to a former patient after it removed her from its medical card list after she had lodged a complaint against the clinic with the Workplace Relations Commission. The WRC ruled that the Saffron & Blue Medical Clinic in Clarecastle, Co Clare had breached the Equal Status Act by victimising the patient, Sarah Mangan. The clinic denied it had engaged in victimisation of Ms Mangan when it sent her a letter on February 13, 2023 in which it stated that her needs would be better served by another GP given the breakdown of trust in the doctor/patient relationship. Ms Mangan, who had been a patient of the practice for over 30 years, submitted a complaint against the practice to the WRC in December 2022. However, the WRC also made a separate ruling that the medical practice had not discriminated against her on grounds of disability over her complaints that she had been refused medical services over her inability to wear a face mask due to various medical conditions. Ms Mangan claimed the medical centre failed to provide her with reasonable accommodation considering her disabilities and also that she was harassed on several occasions because she could not wear a face mask due to suffering from anxiety, asthma, dermographism (a skin condition) and autism. The Saffron & Blue Medical Clinic disputed all the complaints and denied that it had discriminated against the patient. It also claimed she had not provided any credible evidence to support her claims that various medical conditions prevented her from wearing a mask and it did not accept she had a valid diagnosis of autism. A solicitor for the clinic had sought at the outset of a three-day hearing before the WRC to have her complaints dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous and vexatious. Ms Mangan gave evidence of various incidents when she attended the clinic for medical appointments without wearing a face mask. She claimed she was refused permission to wait in an internal waiting area and had to wait in her car, while on other occasions she claimed she was harassed by one of the GPs and a nurse for not wearing a mask. The Workplace Relations Commission and Labour Court offices in Dublin (Image: Philip Fitzpatrick/Collins) She told the WRC that the clinic's practice on mask wearing was not consistent as there were other times when she was seen by a GP when she was not wearing a mask. After being removed from the clinic's medical card panel, Ms Mangan said she was refused as a patient by five other GP practices on the basis they were not accepting medical card holders. She was subsequently assigned a new doctor under the HSE Change of Doctor procedure for medical card holders. Asked about the impact of being removed as a patient, Ms Mangan replied: "It is awful. I don't trust doctors anymore." The clinic's director, Dr Colum Gavin and two other doctors, Marie Quigney and Maeve Cahill, told the WRC hearing that they did not accept that the patient's various health conditions prevented her from wearing a mask. WRC adjudication officer, Moya de Paor, ruled that Ms Mangan had not been refused medical services within the terms of the legislation and did not suffer any discriminatory treatment over the failure to provide reasonable accommodation. However, Ms de Paor said the timeline of events supported the patient's claim that the clinic reacted to her complaint to the WRC by deciding to remove her from its medical card panel. She noted Dr Gavin had claimed that Ms Mangan had been removed from its medical card list because she had lost trust in the practice and not because she had issued legal proceedings against them. However, Ms de Paor remarked: "I do not accept his evidence as convincing or credible." She said there was a direct link between the complaint to the WRC and the decision to remove her as a patient from its medical card panel. Ms de Paor said she appreciated that the doctor/patient relationship was "fraught" during the Covid-19 pandemic and that some of the clinic's staff found it challenging. Nevertheless, she did not consider the manner in which the medical team approached the issue was reasonable as Ms Mangan was given no notification or warning about her removal and was not advised that she remained a patient of the practice until assigned another GP. In setting compensation, Ms de Paor said the breach was at "the more serious end of the scale" given Ms Mangan was a patient of the practice for over 30 years with a complex medical history. She said Ms Mangan was also in a more vulnerable position with less freedom to choose a GP as a medical card holder. Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest news from the Irish Mirror direct to your inbox: Sign up here.
Irish Times
10-07-2025
- Irish Times
University Hospital Limerick accused of laughing at patient in wheelchair
University Hospital Limerick (UHL) took more than a year and a half to apologise to a patient who said he was subjected to 'incredibly degrading' behaviour when staff cracked jokes and laughed at him while he was receiving personal care, a tribunal has heard. At an equality hearing earlier this year, a solicitor for the Health Service Executive said it was accepted 'without equivocation that the treatment and behaviours complained of were unacceptable'. However, the it denied discriminating against the patient, Michael O'Dowd, on the basis of disability while he was an inpatient at UHL from June 7th, 2022, to July 1st, 2023, or in how it handled his complaint. In a decision published on Thursday regarding a statutory complaint by Mr O'Dowd, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) found while he was 'understandably upset', he was out of time to pursue a complaint of alleged discrimination. READ MORE Mr O'Dowd, who represented himself before the tribunal, used a text-to-speech machine called a light-writer to address the hearing in March. He alleged he was 'treated differently because of his wheelchair and speech difficulties'. He said that while he was undergoing a 'personal care' procedure at the hospital on June 7th, 2022, a nurse and two healthcare assistants 'made jokes' about him which 'violated his dignity'. He said that after 12 days of bed rest, staff put him in a wheelchair without appropriate support which led to him 'almost falling out of the chair'. Staff were 'laughing at him and joking about him despite the fact he could have been seriously injured', the tribunal's decision document recorded of his claim. He also said that despite telling hospital staff repeatedly they were causing him pain and distress by moving him 'excessively' and that he could move himself, the workers 'did not listen'. Nor did staff comply with his 'numerous requests' that his tablets not be crushed up, he said. Helen Naughton, an assistant director of nursing at UHL, gave evidence that the complaint was 'very serious' but that she had been 'unable to identify' the staff Mr O'Dowd had named in his complaint. The tribunal noted that Ms Naughton admitted the delay was 'largely down to her'. She said clinical risk in the UHL emergency department had taken priority and that 'all complaints took a back seat'. Mr O'Dowd told the commission he felt 'nauseous and sick' to recall what happened. He said it was 'incredibly degrading to have to listen to [UHL] staff laugh and joke about his personal care'. He said that having 'trusted UHL to assist and support him' he felt he 'cannot now trust [the hospital] with his care'. He added that the experience had damaged his self-esteem and confidence and had 'become an angrier person' as a result. Cliona Kenny of Comyn Kelleher Tobin, solicitor for the respondent, submitted: 'It is accepted without equivocation that the treatment and behaviours complained of were unacceptable.' She also said it was acknowledged that the complaint 'was not dealt with in a timely manner due to significant staffing pressures and clinical demands' at UHL at the time. In her decision, adjudication officer Ewa Sobanska wrote that she had no jurisdiction to investigate alleged discrimination during Mr O'Dowd's hospital stay in 2022 on foot of his complaint in April 2024 because of the passage of time. She wrote that Mr O'Dowd was 'understandably upset by the events' but that his complaint was 'based on his speculation that the adverse treatment arose as a consequence of his disability', and dismissed the complaint.
