A Swiss foundation based in Kenya has been ordered to pay its former senior manager Sh6.7 million for unfairly sacking him over office sexual harassment hearsay.

The Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) fired its head of policy and advocacy in 2024 on the basis that he had allegedly sexually harassed female employees who were below him.

However, Justice Byrum Ongaya said the evidence relied upon by the NGO consisted of mere hearsay accounts in the investigation report.

He observed that in one account, the alleged witness stated that he was present when the alleged victim was allegedly assaulted, but the victim never reported the incident.

The witness codenamed D stated that he could not recall the exact account of what happened during the week beginning September 23, 2024. However, he claimed that he heard his colleague allegedly making ‘sexy comments.’

He alleged that the female employee became unhappy and stated that the male employee codenamed ‘CO’ “was always like that”.

It was also alleged that CA had told her that “you couldn’t have missed me if you agreed to have children with me, then I would have been in your life all the time.”

Then, he claimed that the alleged victim responded that she was not in the business of getting children and she was married. Finally, the witness claimed that CO’s response was that he would be the one to give her the best children.

The witness also alleged that another male employee from another office stated : ‘that must be CO , he can’t help himself.’

The judge said that it appeared that DA’s comments made it appear that his colleague had made such comments severally.

However, the judge said that the investigation report was silent on why the witness and the alleged victim never reported the alleged unpleasant behaviour if it was unwelcome.

He said that based on the single account, there was no justifiable reason to kick out CO.

“There is no further material presented by way of evidence to establish the alleged sexual harassment beyond the investigations report, but which barely sets out accounts by way of unverified allegations and which were never shown to really exist at the disciplinary hearing, disciplinary appeal or even in court,” said Justice Ongaya.

He said that the accounts narrated against CO were also not coherent.

In his case, CO told the court that he received a letter dated October 23, 2024, alleging gross misconduct. He said he was suspended for two weeks, which was later extended to four more weeks.

He told the court that he was apprehensive that his employer would not be impartial, hence, he asked that his lawyer be present during the disciplinary hearing. However, he said that the plea was rejected.

CO narrated that he was ordered to respond within three days on December 17,2024, and he was called for a disciplinary meeting in January this year.

He again asked for independent legal representation during the hearing and to have the statement to cross-examine the complainants.

However, GAIN’s head of human resources again declined the requests and directed that CO consider asking for the written statements to be submitted to the disciplinary panel for consideration.

He stated that an outsider conducted the disciplinary hearing, while GAIN’s representative in the meeting was not allowed to comment on the allegations.

After the hearing, CO was fired on the basis that he had allegedly committed sexual harassment.

He claimed that some of those who had allegedly complained had a sour working relationship with him due to his strictness regarding deliverables for projects he headed.

At the time he was dismissed, he was earning Sh 576,693 a month.

In their reply, GAIN filed affidavits from its head of human resource and an investigator from Fitzgerald HR.

The two claimed that four employees approached the lead of the NGO’s cascade initiative and reported having been victims of alleged inappropriate sexual conduct by CO.

The head of HR claimed that, owing to the seriousness of the issue, she engaged Fitzgerald HR for the investigative and disciplinary process.

The court heard that the investigation was based on interviewing 10 people. However, the show cause letter was based on allegations of sexual harassment involving six employees.

The man denied the allegations and sought to know the identities of his accusers. However, the organizations claimed that those who had come out as alleged victims had sought their anonymity as a right.

It claimed that it was bound to protect them from any form of anticipated intimidation, ridicule, embarrassment, exposure to retaliation and stonewalling.