Temporary injunction granted to teacher publicly accused of being ‘GAA catfish’

A secondary school teacher, who says she has been falsely identified as the ‘GAA catfish’ from a well-known podcast series, has been granted a temporary injunction after a disciplinary process was initiated by her employer.  

The 2 Johnnies podcast 

The ‘GAA catfish’ podcast series was initially created by The 2 Johnnies as a warning against the dangers of catfishing, with the first episode detailing a personal experience that one of the hosts had with an online catfish. For those who are not familiar with the term, catfishing is the process of luring someone into a relationship by means of a fictional online persona. 

After the initial episode, The 2 Johnnies received an outpouring of responses, including first-hand accounts from people who claim to have been catfished by the same woman, with stories going back for years. This sparked the creation of further episodes as the story developed, and more and more people spoke out about their experiences. 

The series has been a viral success, achieving global fame and popularity since it was launched in 2022. In January this year, over just four days, the podcast had over two million streams across the globe. 

From an employer’s perspective, however, this high-profile case highlights the importance of implementing robust and compliant disciplinary procedures. With an injunction now in place, the school is required to cease the disciplinary process and to address the issue in the High Court.  

High Court case and temporary injunction 

The employee in question, who works at a secondary school in Dublin, has said that online allegations claiming that she is the GAA catfish are false. She stated that the school principal has falsely claimed she confided in him about being the real catfish, but that she actually went to him with concerns about the online accusations and told him that the accusations were untrue.  

The employee said she was shocked to receive an investigation report from the principal, and that she had not been told that he was considering a disciplinary process. She also stated that it was unclear what the exact allegations of misconduct were, and that there was no evidence to support her involvement in the catfishing scandal. Additionally, she claimed that she was being unfairly punished due to the public nature of the case and the fact that parents were putting pressure on the school to dismiss her. 

The teacher has now won a High Court Interlocutory Injunction against her employer. As a result, the school is required to pause any action that might harm the claimant. In this specific case, this means that the school cannot go ahead with the disciplinary hearing which they had planned, which could have led to the teacher’s dismissal.  

Having now been postponed by two weeks, the case will resume on the 9th of April, when the school will have the opportunity to present their case and defend the decision to instigate a disciplinary procedure.  

How to conduct a fair and compliant disciplinary procedure 

As seen in the above case, the issue being investigated in the High Court is not whether this woman is the person behind the GAA catfish scandal, but instead about the disciplinary procedure initiated by her employer in response to unconfirmed accusations surrounding that scandal. 

The Workplace Relations Commission’s Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures states that disciplinary procedures should comply with the general principles of natural justice and fair procedures. 

Disciplinary processes should ensure: 

• that details of any allegations or complaints are put to the employee concerned. 
• that the employee concerned is given the opportunity to respond fully to any such allegations or complaints. 
• that the employee concerned is given the opportunity to avail of the right to be represented during the procedure. 
• that the employee concerned has the right to a fair and impartial determination of the issues concerned, taking into account any representations made by, or on behalf of, the employee and any other relevant or appropriate evidence, factors, circumstances. 
• that the range of penalties that can be imposed is well defined and that an internal appeal mechanism is available. 

Additionally, a different person should conduct each stage of the process. For example, if a manager has handled the investigation, that same manager should not chair the disciplinary hearing.  

If the employee appeals the decision, it’s crucial that an independent person, who has played no part in the disciplinary process, conducts the appeal process.