A senior executive with a pharmaceutical company accused of harassing a junior female colleague has launched a High Court action aimed at restraining his employer from continuing an “irredeemably flawed” disciplinary process against him.
The action has been brought by Sean Brennan, a senior vice-president of Global Head of Product Quality and Surveillance at Takeda Pharmaceuticals International, who strongly rejects all of the allegations against him.
Mr Brennan is the subject of an internal disciplinary process over allegations including that he harassed a junior female colleague in the aftermath of the firm’s Christmas Party at a Dublin hotel last December.
He claims he was the subject of an investigation commenced by his employer into allegations that, on the night of the defendant’s Christmas Party, he engaged in an incident of inappropriate touching of a junior female colleague.
Donald Trump is changing America in ways that will reverberate long after he is dead
The jawdropper; the quickest split; the good turn: Miriam Lord’s 2024 Political Awards
The mystery is not why we Irish have responded to Israel’s barbarism. It’s why others have not
Enoch Burke released from prison as judge doubles fine for showing up at school
It is also alleged he made unwanted sexual advances towards her, firstly at a private hotel room and later at an informal after party at another private hotel room after the party had ended.
In the days after the alleged incidents Mr Brennan claims an internal investigation was commenced by the defendant.
He claims that process is flawed on several grounds including that he was refused the opportunity to cross examine his accuser and other witnesses who provided evidence against him.
A final report by the investigators was provided to Mr Brennan which concluded that he had behaved in an inappropriate manner, which he claims amounts to a finding that he has engaged in harassment.
Mr Brennan denies those claims and says the investigators have acted outside of their jurisdiction in making findings against him, and that the report appears to be an attempt to influence the disciplinary panel.
The investigators had no right to make findings of fact against him, and should be made independently of the investigators, he claims.
The events complained of took place at a location not paid for by the employer and was not at a work-social event.
He says the findings against him by the investigators are demonstrably unfair, patently illogical unreasonable and contrary to common sense.
He claims that arising out of the findings contained in the investigation report he is due before a disciplinary panel on Friday, May 3rd which will decide on what action, if any, to take if he is found to have breached his employer’s code of conduct.
Mr Brennan has been warned he may be dismissed from his employment.
Represented by Ian FitzHarris BL and Mark Harty SC, Mr Brennan from Aubrey Manor, Rathcoole, Co Dublin claims the investigation into the allegations has been at all times in fundamental and serious breach of fair procedures, constitutional and natural justice.
He fears that any finding against him will have an adverse impact on his reputation. He has never been the subject of a disciplinary process before, and has worked for the company since 2010.
Following a direction from his employer last December he has been working from home. The court heard that, in correspondence, the employer denies that any impropriety or unfairness has occurred in the probe.
At the High Court on Thursday, Mr Justice Mark Sanfey granted Mr Brennan, on an ex parte basis, a temporary injunction restraining the company from continuing with the disciplinary process.
The judge, who noted a lot of work appeared to have been put into the process by the defendant, said he expected the employer to robustly defend the process when the matter returns before the court.
However, he was satisfied that the plaintiff’s claim that the process is flawed is arguable and, given the serious consequences for Mr Brennan’s employment, was satisfied to grant a temporary injunction.
The matter was adjourned for a week.
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Find The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
- Listen to our Inside Politics podcast for the best political chat and analysis
