Company ordered to pay ex-employee for menses humiliation

For five years, Caroline, whose name we have redacted to reduce stigma, happily worked at Sun Power Products Limited (Brown’s Food Company).

The firm deals in food and dairy products, including cheeses, creams, organic milk and cheddar, and crackers.

However, a bizarre incident that occurred in 2023 led her to sue the company for sexual harassment.

Subsequently, the Employment and Labour Court agreed with her and awarded her Sh 1 million as compensation for violation of her rights.

On the fateful day, a sanitary pad was found in a trash bin. Caroline, in her case before Justice Jacob Gikeri, narrated that she, alongside other female employees were summoned by two senior managers who ordered them to undress and expose their undergarments in search of who among them was on her period to know who among them had disposed of the pad.

She testified that Brown’s quality assurance officer, Rose Lydia Opondo, inspected while the human resource manager oversaw the entire exercise against 35 female employees.

Caroline argued that the exercise was a violation of her right to privacy and human dignity. She claimed that she was forced to resign. According to her, the workplace was allegedly toxic and hostile.

In reply, Delia Stirling, who is one of Brown’s directors, denied Caroline’s allegations. She argued that the firm has a comprehensive sexual harassment, whistleblower and non-discrimination policy which provided an avenue for redress. Stirling stated that Caroline did not invoke the same, adding that she had voluntarily quit.

However, she admitted that the company had let go of Opondo and Vivienne Mukoko for violating the company’s policy on privacy and sexual harassment. She insisted that the two went on a floric of their own, adding that the senior management and the directors were unaware of it.

Stirling also told the court that the conduct was unacceptable and against Brown’s employee handbook and code of ethics and sexual harassment policy.

She also stated that after the incident, the company hired Imela Ventures to offer counselling to those affected from July 2023 to October 2024.

Striling argued that Brown’s was not liable for the actions of the two.

The court also heard that Caroline was also allowed to work overtime when available and was compensated for the same.

During cross-examination, Caroline told the court that Opondo had told them that they would lose their job if they did not undress. She, however, admitted that the code of ethics had a reporting mechanism, and after the incident, the two managers left the employment.

She further acknowledged that she continued working until she quit without any incident of the alleged toxicity. Caroline also told the court that other female employees who were strip-searched are still working with Brown’s to date and receiving counselling.

Justice Gikeri observed that both Caroline and Stirling agreed that a sanitary pad was found in a bin and that all female employees were lined up in the toilet where they had to remove and display their inner wears for verification of who was on her monthly period.

He however, noted, it was unclear if the sanitary pad’s owner was found.

On one hand, the judge said that it was humiliating but on the other he found that it was strange that Caroline never reported or told anyone about it.

“ No doubt the conduct of the two officers subjected the petitioner and her colleague to indignation, degrading and humiliation. Their right to human dignity was violated as was their right to privacy. Paragraph 12 of the petitioner’s supporting affidavit stated that approximately 35 female employees were subjected to the treatment by the two senior officers, which in the court’s view raises troubling questions of how two (2) unarmed female employees could bulldoze 35 other employees and subject them to degrading treatment and none stood up or walked away, yet they had the doors were open,” paused Gikeri.

He added that Caroline ought to have raised her finger, knowing that she had a right as an employee.

He, however, ruled that it was clear that the two senior managers had abused their powers. He added that Brown’s could not escape liability as it had given the two managers responsibility over other employees.

“The reasoning is that the respondent employed the two officers and gave them responsibilities over other staff and thus cannot escape liability for their nefarious acts committed in the course of their employment against fellow employees at the workplace. The conduct of the officers and their employment were, in the court’s view, inseparable,” he said.

Justice Gikeri however, dismissed Caroline’s claim that she had been victimized and the workplace was toxic, saying that she had in her letter expressed satisfaction as she exited.