Museum keeper challenging suspension over sexual harassment claims does not have to hand over medical records
A National Museum of Ireland (NMI) assistant keeper of antiquities will not have to hand over his medical records as part of his legal challenge to his suspension for alleged sexual harassment, the Court of Appeal has ruled.
Dr Andrew Halpin, Yellowmeadows Avenue, Clondalkin, Dublin, is suing the National Museum of Ireland (NMI) over his suspension following an internal investigation in 2016 of sexual harassment of an intern which led to certain restrictions on him, including that he was not to work alone with female colleagues.
He was also to have limited internet access after there was a separate complaint alleging he had several hundred pictures of tall women, including digitally altered images, on his work computer, none of which were pornographic.
Following media reports in February 2017 about alleged sexual harassment by an NMI employee, he was suspended when he refused to go on a paid leave of absence.
He brought High Court proceedings seeking to quash the suspension and prohibiting a requirement that he attend a psychiatrist and psychologist for assessment.
Last May, the High Court ordered his medical records relating to documents on his mental health, including any counselling he had undergone, be provided on the basis that they would be sealed and placed on court file should they be required pending the outcome of his case.
The NMI appealed the "sealed" requirement while Dr Halpin cross-appealed seeking to overturn the entire decision.
On Wednesday, Ms Justice Mary Irvine, on behalf of the three-judge appeal court, dismissed the NMI appeal and allowed Dr Halpin's appeal.
She was satisfied the High Court erred in making an order that he discover the medical records.
This was not necessary or relevant for the proper and fair determination of any issue in the proceedings and was not in accordance with the rules of the superior courts, she said.
Earlier, Ms Justice Irvine said a previous internal investigation in 2006 found Dr Halpinguilty of sexual harassment.
Along with a loss of pay increments, he was required to undergo counselling.
Following the new complaint in 2015 from an intern, and the separate complaint about pictures of tall women on his computer, he and the NMI agreed he would take a leave of absence on full pay, as an alternative to suspension.
A few days later, he changed his mind and he was suspended on full pay while a decision was later taken by the NMI board that he undergo assessment.
He then brought proceedings and brought a second case later because, it was claimed, the NMI had changed the terms of the suspension.
In the meantime, the appeal over the disclosure of his medical records proceeded.
The NMI argued the medical records had a clear bearing on his fitness for work. Dr Halpin argued it was a "fishing expedition" to retrospectively justify the decision to suspend.
Ms Justice Irvine agreed it was a "classic fishing expedition" to provide justification after the event.
She regretted to say the High Court failed to give due consideration to the issues actually identified in Dr Halpin's claim.
That court had erred in law in acceding to the NMI application for discovery of the records, even on the restricted "sealed" basis, she said.
