She was working in a cold larder preparing food when a colleague sexually harassed her. The complainant sought an investigation by their employer. The complainant alleged that the employer improperly conducted this investigation, resulting in further distress for the complainant and her needing to take several months of work. Ultimately, she resigned. The Tribunal awarded damages to the complainant, finding that: i the complainant was sexually harassed by her colleague; ii the sexual harassment constituted sex discrimination; iii the harassment constituted age discrimination; iv that the complainant was not victimized by her employers because she brought a sexual harassment complaint; and v respondent did not take reasonable steps to prevent the sexual harassment.
It appears that the substantive trial has not yet commenced or alternatively a settlement was reached. In any case, this case is relevant as it illustrates the discrimination women may face in Australia when seeking to establish themselves in a secure environment and raise their children. The complainant was a single mother who sought to rent an apartment from the respondent. The complainant sought an apology. Video evidence was submitted at trial from CCTV.
Importantly, there was an additional individual in the lift. However, the tribunal ultimately did not find for the complainant as the words used were determined by the tribunal to not, in fact, result in religious vilification as the additional individual in the lift did not react to the words.
This case is relevant as it goes directly to ongoing discrimination women may face in Australia as a result of expressing their religion through, for example, wearing a hijab. The complainant was a woman in an exclusive lesbian relationship for four years. The complainant and her partner wanted to have child but learned that donor insemination in Queensland would not be available for them, so the complainant traveled out of state to seek this treatment.
She found the experience to be emotionally and financially draining, so she stopped the treatment. Thus, the complainant decided to try and ask the clinics in Queensland for the donor treatment. She found a clinic at which the respondent was a director. She obtained a referral from her general practitioner and scheduled an appointment with the respondent. At the appointment, the complainant informed the respondent that she was in a long-term lesbian relationship.
