Sexual harassment

SEXUAL HARASSMENT - CASE STUDIES

The following case studies are based on matters which have been received by the Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland. They are provided as a guide to the range of outcomes which can be achieved, and kinds of issues raised.

Sexual harassment in Work

A woman alleged a manager sexually harassed her when working for a club over a period of several years. The allegations included touching her breasts, leering and that comments of a sexual nature were made about her body. She stated she had complained to management several times and that the complaints were ignored. She also alleged that as a woman she had been denied promotions offered to less experienced males at the club. As a result, she resigned.

The manager and the employer denied the allegations, stating her attitude at work had deteriorated during her employment. The matter was resolved by conciliation with the employer and the manager paying $15,000 to the complainant. The respondents also provided written apologies for any offence the complainant may have experienced.

Sexual harassment case not made out - Shepherd v. Tuck and Tuki Marine Surveys Pty Ltd [2002] QADT 10 (19 April 2002) - Member Pagani

Background: Ms Shepherd was a 23 year old woman employed by Mr Tuck, who owned and managed a marine survey business. After two months, Ms Shepherd's employment was terminated on the basis, she alleged, that she would not engage in a personal relationship with him.

She based her complaint on a series of incidents alleged to be sexual harassment. These included: statements of a sexual nature to and about her: `blonde' jokes (apparently inferring that she was not intelligent), taking a photograph of another woman's legs and suggesting it be stuck on Ms Shepherd's office desk, gifts and a suggestion of shared accommodation while travelling in order to minimise costs.

Mr Tuck admitted he was attracted to Ms Shepherd, but said it was she who made advances to him and that she proposed a relationship. He countered the allegations with other claims. These included Ms Shepherd introducing herself by kissing him on the neck, not voicing any objection to shared accommodation, referring to herself as a slut, and dressing scantily in his presence.

Mr Tuck argued that Ms Shepherd's employment was terminated because of her inappropriate conduct while representing the company, her lack of capacity to do the tasks, and inadequate workplace performance. Examples included giving out company business cards to males in whom she was interested, making a serious error in a ship's manual and instead of correcting it as asked, going to "have a drink" with the ship's cook, refusing to do field work, putting personal matters before business appointments, and driving the company car after drinking alcohol. On the issue of jokes, Mr Tuck said Ms Shepherd joined in the general joke-telling and humour of the office.

Outcome: Member Pagani found that neither party was "deliberately untruthful", and agreed in general on the facts. She found the main divergence was that Mr Tuck indicated he never intended offence, and Ms Shepherd said she was offended.

In terms of Mr Tuck's desire to have a relationship with Ms Shepherd, it was found "that no reasonable person in her circumstances would have been offended by the proposal, had it been made by the first respondent as alleged".

In summing up, the Member said "Ms Shepherd and Mr Tuck had shared a very casual, and personal, working relationship. The working environment was `rough and tumble', but the complainant was an equal participant in it". The Member found that Ms Shepherd failed to prove her case to the required standard.

A man alleged sexual harassment against a male supervisor and his employer, a government authority. It was also alleged that in the course of attempting to resolve the complaint the complainant experienced difficulties accessing the grievance mechanisms within the organisation.

At a conciliation conference, the allegations were discussed and misunderstandings were identified resulting in the complainant withdrawing his complaint against his supervisor.

The complainant was able to detail his experience to the respondents and an agreement was reached which included the employer reviewing the grievance and investigation procedures to include quick reference summaries and flow charts to assist access and implementation of the mechanisms. It was also agreed by the employer to increase training and awareness of appropriate work place behaviour including detailed anti-discrimination and sexual harassment grievance mechanisms.

There was no financial settlement sought.

Sexual Harassment

A man alleged that he had been sexually harassed at his place of work. He claimed one of his co-workers had exposed his anus to him, had run a piece of timber with splinters up between his legs to his groin and had run his finger down between his buttocks. When he objected, apparently his co-workers began calling him obscene names regularly. The man said he had witnessed many male youths being subjected to the same treatment at the work place, with most of the young men resigning, with one young man having attempted suicide. When he advised his foreman of this behaviour, he was told to ignore the men’s actions. He claimed management had witnessed the behaviour but had done nothing to rectify the problem.

At the conference the individual respondents admitted to the behaviour but asserted that the actions had occurred only as a joke in an attempt to lighten the work environment. The senior managers stated that they were unaware of the behaviour occurring as the foremen had not notified them at any time of adverse behaviour occurring. The company did admit that they had difficulties in getting young males to remain employed with them, however, they believed this may have been because "young people didn’t want to work."

On hearing the admissions made, the company issued a first and final warning to the individual respondents and gave an undertaking that all staff would be trained in sexual harassment and discrimination matters and that such behaviour would not in the future be tolerated by any staff. The complaint was resolved as the complainant was satisfied with the company’s undertaking and the individual men’s apologies.

Sexual Harassment in Education

A woman lodged a complaint with the Commission alleging sexual harassment by her boss who was also her academic mentor. The woman alleged that the sexual harassment occurred over a period of two years. The alleged harasser was in a position of authority over her in that she was his student and he was her boss. She claimed towards the end of the sexual harassment he ‘stalked’ her by following her and waiting outside her house.

The respondents denied the allegations stating that the relationship was mutual and that there was no sexual harassment.

In conciliation the matter settled for the payment of $60,000 for pain and suffering and the individual respondent provided a written apology. One of the two respondents settled the matter with the payment of $5,000. Both parties were extremely pleased with the resolution of the matter.

BACK TO CASE STUDIES HOME PAGE

This information is intended as a guide only. It is not a substitute for legal advice. For more information contact the Commission on 1300 130 670 statewide or Teletypewriter 1300 130 680 statewide.