Husband's HR Firm "Harassed" Ill Wife: Lessons for HR

In 2024, an Irish High Court judge, Mr Justice Max Barrett, said that an HR firm hired by a husband for the business he ran with his brother had "harassed" the man's seriously ill wife, who worked in that business, sometimes messaging her daily while she was undergoing several operations. The comments came in divorce proceedings, not an employment case, but the lesson for HR is direct.

This article is for HR leaders, in-house practitioners and external HR consultants who handle absence, discipline or pay issues involving employees who are ill. It sets out what was reported, what was and was not decided, and the practical safeguards that would have helped.

Key takeaways

• The judge's remarks were made in divorce rulings. They were not a finding of liability against the HR firm in a harassment or employment claim.
• The wife was later dismissed and, at the time of reporting, was pursuing an unfair dismissal claim that had not been decided.
• Frequent formal contact with a seriously ill employee can look like pressure, whatever the stated purpose.
• When the person instructing an HR firm has a personal stake in the outcome, the firm needs to recognize the conflict and act independently.
• Good records of why each step was taken, and when, are the best protection for everyone involved.

What actually happened in the case?

According to reports by The Irish Times and BreakingNews.ie on 6 March 2024, the facts as described in the judgments were these:

• The husband and his brother were directors of a business. The wife worked in the business but was not a director.
• While she was seriously ill and undergoing several operations, her husband asked her to document her illnesses to the business's HR department.
• He engaged a human resources firm based overseas. The firm "bombarded" her with messages, sometimes daily, and asked her to take part in a disciplinary process.
• The judge said the firm "harassed" her.
• The firm reassessed her pay and concluded that she had been overpaid.
• She was later dismissed, and she is pursuing an unfair dismissal claim.

The judgments themselves dealt mainly with the divorce: custody, division of assets and maintenance, a refused application by the husband to reduce maintenance, and concerns about his financial disclosures and use of company money. The HR firm's conduct was part of the background the judge described.

Was the HR firm found liable for harassment?

No, not on the facts reported. This is the most common misreading of the story. "Harassed" was the judge's description in family law rulings. No employment tribunal or court had, at the time of reporting, decided a harassment claim against the HR firm or ruled on whether the dismissal was unfair.

That matters if you are using the case in training or policy discussions. It is a strong example of how HR conduct can look to a senior judge reviewing the facts. It is not a precedent on the liability of HR consultancies. The same caution about reading court filings applies to celebrity cases, as our timeline of the Jeezy and Jeannie Mai Jenkins divorce explains.

Even so, the description should concern any HR practitioner. If a judge looking at your file would call your contact pattern harassment, you have a problem regardless of which forum eventually rules on it.

Why does illness change how HR processes should run?

An absence or disciplinary process that would be routine for a healthy employee can land very differently on someone recovering from surgery. Daily messages, formal invitations to disciplinary meetings and a demand to repay salary, all during treatment, add up to pressure even if each step looks defensible on paper.

In Ireland, the Workplace Relations Commission and the Health and Safety Authority's joint Code of Practice on the prevention and resolution of bullying at work applies to all employments. The Health and Safety Authority treats workplace bullying as a serious health and safety issue, and employers must prevent improper conduct that could put employees' safety, health or welfare at risk. Failing to follow the Code is not an offence in itself, but it is admissible in evidence, and courts and the WRC must take relevant provisions into account. Other countries have their own rules. For a U.S. angle, see our guide on whether an employee can be fired while on medical leave.

Practically, proportionate handling of a seriously ill employee usually means:

1. Pausing or slowing formal processes when the person cannot reasonably take part.
2. Agreeing how and how often contact will happen, and sticking to it.
3. Getting occupational health input before steps that affect pay or employment.
4. Asking whether each step is necessary now, or only convenient for the organization.
5. Letting the employee bring a representative or nominate a contact person.

What about the conflict of interest?

This is the uncomfortable part of the case. The person who engaged the HR firm was the employee's husband, in the middle of a marriage breakdown, and a director of the business. Whatever his intentions, the instruction came from someone with a personal stake in the outcome.

External HR consultants act for the employer, but they still have a professional duty to run fair processes and respect the employee's legal rights. When the instruction comes through a conflicted channel, a consultant should:

• Ask who else in the business can confirm the instructions, such as another director.
• Document the conflict and how it is being managed.
• Refuse steps that look designed to pressure rather than resolve.
• Step away from the engagement if independence cannot be maintained.

In-house HR faces the same issue when a senior leader has a personal relationship with the employee involved. The answer is similar: name the conflict, move decisions to someone without it, and keep records.

What should employers and HR consultancies take from this?

For employers, hiring an outside HR firm does not hand off responsibility. The firm acts on your behalf, and its conduct reflects on you in any later claim. Before engaging one, ask how it handles absence and discipline for employees who are ill, what its contact standards are, and who approves escalation.

For consultancies, the case is a reminder to apply independent judgment rather than simply executing instructions. Formal steps in a disciplinary process should follow a fair procedure, and when a client's request would mean pressuring a vulnerable employee, the professional response is to say so in writing.

Both sides benefit from good case records. An HR system that logs each contact, decision and reason creates a timeline that can show proportionality later. It cannot supply judgment, though. Someone still has to ask whether the next message needs to be sent at all.

Finally, watch for patterns that continue after concerns are raised. If an employee has already complained about contact or treatment, our guide on what to do when workplace bullying continues after a warning sets out next steps.

FAQ

Did the High Court find the HR firm legally liable?

Based on the reported judgments, no. Mr Justice Max Barrett described the firm's conduct as harassment in divorce rulings, but the firm was not a defendant in a harassment claim there. The wife's unfair dismissal claim was still pending when the rulings were reported, so no tribunal had decided the employment questions.

Can an HR consultancy be liable for how it treats an employee?

It depends on the country and the type of claim, and this case did not decide the question. Don't assume that hiring an outside firm moves the risk away from the employer, and don't assume the firm is immune either. The employer chose the firm and the process ran in its name. Get advice for your jurisdiction before relying on either assumption.

How often should HR contact an employee on sick leave?

There is no single rule. Agree a contact plan with the employee, usually a named person and a frequency they can manage, and adjust it to medical advice. Contact should support recovery and return to work. Repeated formal messages, especially about discipline or pay, during treatment are the pattern that caused concern in this case.

What to do next

1. Write a short contact standard for employees on medical leave, covering who contacts them and how often.
2. Add a conflict-of-interest check to every engagement of an outside HR firm.
3. Require occupational health input before pay recovery or disciplinary steps involving an employee on sick leave.
4. Review open cases involving ill employees and confirm each pending step is necessary now.

Sources

• The Irish Times: Man engaged firm that 'bombarded' seriously ill wife over perceived HR policy transgressions (6 March 2024)
• BreakingNews.ie: Husband hired HR firm that 'harassed' his seriously ill wife with messages, judge says (6 March 2024)
• Workplace Relations Commission: Code of Practice on the Prevention and Resolution of Bullying at Work

Last reviewed: October 2026.

Related reading

• When a Workplace Crush Crosses the Line How to Navigate Boundaries with Direct Reports