An employee, who claimed she was sexually assaulted by her supervisor on a work conference has been awarded over $600,000 in damages after the ACT Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the decision that the employee had not consented to sexual activity and consequently that the supervisor committed a trespass.
An employee has been awarded $733,723 after successfully suing her employer for breach of the duty of care she was owed after the director systematically sexually harassed, intimidated and bullied her, with the result that she developed a psychological illness.
A Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia increased damages awarded to a victim of sexual harassment.
A Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia has found a general damages award of $18,000 to a victim of sexual harassment to be manifestly inadequate and awarded $100,000.
The Full Bench also awarded Ms Richardson $30,000 for economic loss.
Ms Rebecca Richardson had suffered an adjustment disorder with mixed features of anxiety and depression after experiencing humiliating slurs and sexual advances from her co-worker Mr Tucker. The two employees worked together in Melbourne as part of a bid team to secure a project, during which there emerged a “repeated pattern” and “systematic course of conduct” of sexual harassment.
The company was found to be liable as a result of Mr Tucker’s unlawful conduct. The unlawful conduct was found to have diminished Ms Richardson’s sexual relationship with her existing partner. Evidence from Ms Richardson and her existing partner was reliable and credible in demonstrating that a “variety of factors” affected the sexual relationship, one of which was the unlawful conduct of Mr Tucker.
The judge at first instances has award $18,000 general damages to Ms Richardson and had referred in his decision to the general range of awards in past decisions. The Court found that $18,000 could not be fairly viewed as reasonable compensation for Ms Richardson’s psychological injury, as recent case law has awarded general damages for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. In support of this decision, the Court determined that it was dangerous to depend on a general range of general damages award in sex discrimination and sexual harassment cases, especially when the community now places a higher value on compensation for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life.
The Court referred to modern cases of personal injury, workplace bullying and harassment to demonstrate how awards of damages accord a substantial value on pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. Judge Besanko commented on how an award falling within the general range for sexual harassment cases may be manifestly inadequate as compensatory damages:
“Even this cursory overview of the quantum of awards historically awarded in these other fields to successful claimants in situations not wholly unlike Ms Richardson’s reveals a substantial disparity between the level of those awards and the typical compensatory damages provided to victims of sexual discrimination and harassment. Such disparity bespeaks the fact that today an award for sexual harassment, though within the accepted range for such cases, may be manifestly inadequate as compensation for the damage suffered by the victim, judged by reference to prevailing community standards.”
* PCC Lawyers are a team of employment practitioners based in Sydney, with many years of combined knowledge and experience in workplace law, industrial relations, workplace investigations and training. They provide a high standard of excellence and an exceptional level of personal service to a variety of clients in the Sydney metropolitan area, Central Coast, regional NSW and interstate.