|
Sexual harassment is any unwelcome sexual attention that is offensive in some way. It is against the law whenever and wherever it happens. Under the Queensland legislation, sexual harassment occurs if a person:
-
subjects another person to an unsolicited act of physical intimacy;
-
makes an unsolicited demand or request (whether directly or by implication) for sexual favours from the other person;
-
makes a remark with sexual connotations relating to the other person; or
-
engages in any other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature in relation to the other person;
AND the person engaging in the conduct does so either:
-
with the intention of offending, humiliating or intimidating the other person; or
-
in circumstances where a reasonable person would have anticipated the possibility that the other person would be offended, humiliated or intimidated by the conduct.
CASE EXAMPLE
ANTI DISCRIMINATION TRIBUNAL AWARDS $40 000 FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT
Lang v. Nutt Anti-Discrimination Tribunal Queensland, Member Roney, 23 November 2004 [2004]QADT 37
The complainant, who had been a marketing assistant with the Palm Beach Surf Lifesaving Club Supporters’ Club Inc, alleged that she had been subjected to sexual harassment by the General Manager during her employment for some 2.5 years. She claimed she had been subjected to unsolicited demands for sexual favours, comments with sexual connotations relating to her, other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature and an unsolicited act of physical intimacy, namely kissing on the lips and on the head.
The Tribunal found that although there had been a level of sexual banter and innuendo engaged in by both parties, none of that amounted to solicitation or encouragement for the conduct which occurred. The Tribunal was of the view that it would have been obvious to Mr Nutt that his advances were unwelcome and that he was attempting to use a position of influence over Ms Lang to persuade her to engage in consensual sexual activity with him. The Tribunal also considered that whilst Ms Lang’s reaction to the events resulted from her special susceptibility to anxiety or panic attacks, this did not excuse the respondent or diminish his responsibility for the consequences of his actions. The Tribunal applied the “eggshell skull” rule that just because Ms Lang might have a special susceptibility did not mean that the compensation she should receive should be reduced.
The Tribunal considered an award of $15 000 for general compensation was appropriate together with interest. The Tribunal found that Ms Lang was probably capable of performing paid work from the time she left the Club’s employment but the respondent had not sought to show that there was any employment available to her that she should have undertaken. In any event, the Tribunal considered that Ms Lang would have had difficulty obtaining employment given her depressed state. The Tribunal awarded $24 700 for past economic loss being the equivalent of 1 year’s nett income, making a total award of $40 505.
|
Discrimination