The Federal Court has granted a female employee $476,000 in
damages, after finding she was sexually harassed by an
"arrogant" contractor. The contractor (who was engaged as
a contract accountant) had been pursuing the female employee in an
aggressive and persistent manner, despite her repeated rejections.
The actual incident leading to the claim took place after a work
party, where it was alleged that the contractor sexually assaulted
the victim in a corridor. The female employee later reported the
incident to the police and resigned from employment.
The self-represented accountant claimed that as a contractor (as
opposed to a fellow employee of the victim), he was not liable for
breaches brought under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). The
contractor also argued that the sexual harassment application was
beyond the scope of the legislation as the alleged incident took
place in the common corridor outside the office, and outside normal
working hours. The Court rejected the defense, noting that the
essential requirement to be satisfied in sexual harassment cases is
a common workplace between the victim and the person committing the
In assessing damages, the judge took into account the female
employee's post-traumatic stress disorder and other psychiatric
illness that had resulted from the alleged sexual assault. Her
resignation, and the impact of the incident on her ability to work,
were further considerations. The judge ordered damages of $476,000,
with the intent to punish the contractor and deter him and others
from engaging in similar conduct in the future.
This is a timely reminder that the protections in the Sex
Discrimination Act apply to all "workplace participants",
which is a broader concept than employees, and includes
Further, this decision confirms that a "workplace"
includes associated common areas, which is consistent with the
broad scope of what a "workplace" may be, as any
alternative interpretation would undermine the Act's
Ewin v Vergara (No 3) (2013) FCA 1311
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Long experience representing many of Australia's leading employers has taught us that in employment litigation the identity of an employee's representative is a major factor in how employee litigation runs.
Treasurer Scott Morrison recently announced changes to a number of 2016 Budget superannuation contribution measures.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).