SuperValu worker claims allegation of sexual harassment was retaliation against homophobia complaint

A supermarket worker who said he was accused of getting drunk and touching a colleague at a work Christmas party in retaliation against his complaint about another employee subjecting him to homophobic abuse has lost his employment rights case.Richardson Reboucas claimed he was discriminated against and penalised on the grounds of his sexual orientation by his former employer, Boyne Valley Supermarkets Ltd, trading as Smith’s SuperValu in Navan, Co Meath, as well as being penalised for whistle-blowing. At the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on Tuesday Reboucas said he complained to his employer verbally when a colleague, Mr X, was “threatening” towards him and used “homophobic words” towards him. Mr X called him a “f*ggott”, Reboucas told adjudication officer Niamh O’Carroll when she asked him for specifics of the 30th March, 2025 incident at a hearing in July. READ MOREHe said the company investigated a complaint he made and decided that “the homophobic behaviour was proven” but “did not punish” Mr X. Reboucas said his ex-employer refused to give him a copy of an external investigation report and did not do so until he made a Garda complaint. “The following week, after I got the report, there was a new investigation opened, this time against me, and this was regarding sexual abuse that had taken place supposedly four months before, at Christmas,” he said. He maintained this allegation was “retaliatory” and that the supermarket’s handling of the matter was “discriminatory and designed to obstruct”. Soaring energy costs and why ‘we can’t protect everyone from the impact of war’A human resources consultant engaged by the employer, Ray Hoare, gave evidence that on 6th April, 2025, another worker, Y, emailed the company’s accounts department alleging Mr Reboucas sexually harassed him at the staff Christmas party on 14 December 2024. The allegation was that Reboucas “was extremely drunk, making sexual and lewd remarks such that it made him uncomfortable, inviting him to nightclubs and bars, such that [Mr Y’s] friends had to intervene”, Hoare said. Hoare said the complaint by Y came by email and preceded Reboucas’s complaint about X by four days. However, Reboucas said he complained verbally about X first, when he went to company director Fiona McQuillan on 30th March, 2025, the day of the alleged homophobic abuse. “[Mr Y’s] parents actually came into the premises to explain to Fiona that this young lad wasn’t able to cope with what happened with Richardson (Reboucas) in that Christmas party, rubbing his chest, making lewd comments, inviting him to nightclubs afterwards,” Hoare said.“They accused me of somehow touching sexually someone on the torso during the Christmas party,” Reboucas said. “I had done nothing, and this was only a way of putting obstacles on my claim against [Mr X],” Reboucas said. Hoare’s evidence was that he upheld allegations of harassment and verbal abuse committed against Reboucas by X. X quit before he could proceed with disciplinary action, and apologised to Reboucas, Hoare addedReboucas said he was asked directly at the party: “Are you gay?” and said he answered: “Yes, I am gay,” because it was a “relaxed” party setting.“I openly showed my sexuality, that I had not a problem with it, and they started asking me questions in a way intended to shame me, make me feel ashamed of my sexual orientation,” Reboucas said. “I presented the facts. [Hoare] showed the comments of the witnesses, and again it was stated that nothing had happened, nothing serious or no abuse had taken place,” Reboucas said.He said his bosses told him at the meeting that other witnesses “had seen nothing suspicious or nothing sexual abuse-related during the Christmas party”. He remained in the job for four more months and quit in November that year, the tribunal heard. In her decision, O’Carroll wrote that there was no evidence that the time taken to release the report on the Christmas party allegation was linked to Reboucas’s sexual orientation or for whistle-blowing. Nor was there evidence to support his claims of further adverse treatment in the months before he quit, the adjudicator wrote. O’Carroll dismissed all Reboucas’s complaints under the Employment Equality Act 1998 and the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 as “not well founded”.