A settlement has been reached in a High Court dispute between a “whistleblower” teacher and his school’s board of management over the terms of a planned investigation arising from alleged remarks made by another male teacher concerning two sixth-year female graduate students.
The plaintiff teacher has claimed he told his school principal in August 2011 that a male colleague had told him of having sex with a female graduate student at the colleague’s home in 2008.
The plaintiff claims he went to the principal after the same colleague told him in 2011 he exposed himself to a different female graduate student “in the stands” of a sports facility.
The colleague totally rejects he either said or did those things, the court heard. It was also told there is no suggestion of any criminal conduct in relation to the alleged encounters with the two women in 2008 and 2011 and there has been no sixth year student aged under 18 in the relevant all girl second level school for some time.
Marguerite Bolger SC, for the alleged whistleblower, said “nothing was done” arising from what her client disclosed in 2011 until an investigation was initiated by the school in recent months.
Her client made disclosures under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 which affords “spectacular” protections for whistleblowers and, because he had a reasonable belief of the truth of what he disclosed, he should not be at risk of disciplinary proceedings or penalty irrespective of the findings of the investigation, she argued.
The alleged whistleblower had sought orders restraining any disciplinary proceedings against him arising from the investigation, to be carried out by an independent investigator, arising from what he had told the school. The other teacher has denied the allegations and has made counter-allegations against the plaintiff concerning the latter’s motivation and conduct, the court heard.
Mr Justice Paul Gilligan, noting both sides had accepted there had to be an investigation into the matter, had suggested the sides should try and resolve matters.
On Friday, the judge was told by Maurice Collins SC, for the school board of management, the sides had agreed “a way forward” and on how the plaintiff’s injunctions application could be resolved. The only remaining dispute between them concerned legal costs which could be addressed later, counsel said.
Ms Bolger said the manner in which the dispute has been resolved meant her side would not have to proceed with their case. Her client’s concern had been about how the proposed process was to be carried out and the current process was being set aside and replaced by a process “acceptable” to her client, counsel said.
Mr Collins said his position was the plaintiff’s injunction proceedings were misconceived with regard to the Protected Disclosures Act 2014.
Mr Justice Gilligan said he noted the terms of the agreement and would deal with costs in October.
In his proceedings, the alleged whistleblower claims he reported both alleged revelations to him by his colleague to the school principal in August 2011 but was not aware any action was taken as a result. When his daughter was preparing to enrol in the school, he again raised the matters with the principal in March 2015.
While the females involved may have been over 18, the teacher said he considered his colleague’s behaviour “highly inappropriate” and felt he had a moral obligation to report it.
After he raised the matters again in March 2015, he was asked to meet with the school’s solicitor and was later told the board of management has appointed an independent investigator to investigate his disclosures, his colleague’s response to those and to make findings of fact and recommendations to the board.
The court was told the plaintiff’s concern was about any possible finding he conducted himself in breach of discipline and his legal action was intended to prevent any adverse outcome for him as, he argued, he had made protected disclosures under the 2014 Act. He was willing to engage with the investigation but any disciplinary aspect concerning him should be taken out of it, it was argued.
Mr Collins, for the board, had said it was not asserting the teacher had not made an appropriate disclosure but, given the allegations and counter-allegations, there must be an investigation which could result in a range of possible findings.
