Adams -V- Helios Electroheat Pty. Limited [1996] NSWEOT

Adams -V- Helios Electroheat Pty. Limited [1996] NSWEOT

On the balance of probability, the Tribunal accepted Mrs Adams' evidence over Mr Baker's where their evidence conflicted and found that each alleged discriminatory act occurred. The sexual and sex-based conduct would not have occurred had a male person occupied Mrs Adams' position, affected the terms and conditions of her employment, and subjected her to detriment. Helios Electroheat Pty. Limited was liable because it failed to have adequate procedures to prevent or address discriminatory conduct and did not establish that Mr Baker's acts were not authorised, while Mr Baker was directly responsible for the unlawful discrimination.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 September 1996
Procedural Posture
Complaint of Discrimination on the Ground of Sex (sexual Harassment) in Employment Under Part 3 of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 / Tribunal Enquiry Following Referral by the President of the Anti Discrimination Board Pursuant to Section 94(1) After Unsuccessful Conciliation
Outcome
Complaint upheld against both the First Respondent and the Second Respondent; damages awarded to Mrs Adams; no order for costs.
Legal Topics
['sex Discrimination' 'sexual Harassment' 'vicarious Liability of Employer' 'workplace Grievance Procedures' 'general Damages' 'special Damages' 'costs']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'employment Law'] ['sex Discrimination' 'sexual Harassment' 'vicarious Liability of Employer' 'workplace Grievance Procedures' 'general Damages' 'special Damages' 'costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Complaint of Discrimination on the Ground of Sex (sexual Harassment) in Employment Under Part 3 of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 / Tribunal Enquiry Following Referral by the President of the Anti Discrimination Board Pursuant to Section 94(1) After Unsuccessful Conciliation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Baker subjected Mrs Adams to discriminatory acts, including sexual harassment and sex-based abuse, in the course of her employment.' 'Whether the conduct amounted to less favourable treatment on the ground of sex affecting the terms or conditions of employment or subjecting Mrs Adams to detriment under sections 24 and 25 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.' "Whether Helios Electroheat Pty. Limited was liable for Mr Baker's conduct under section 52 or section 53 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977." 'Whether Mrs Adams was entitled to damages and costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probability, the Tribunal accepted Mrs Adams' evidence over Mr Baker's where their evidence conflicted and found that each alleged discriminatory act occurred. The sexual and sex-based conduct would not have occurred had a male person occupied Mrs Adams' position, affected the terms and conditions of her employment, and subjected her to detriment. Helios Electroheat Pty. Limited was liable because it failed to have adequate procedures to prevent or address discriminatory conduct and did not establish that Mr Baker's acts were not authorised, while Mr Baker was directly responsible for the unlawful discrimination.

Court Disposition

Complaint upheld against both the First Respondent and the Second Respondent; damages awarded to Mrs Adams; no order for costs.

Orders

  • ['Mrs Adams is awarded general damages of $15,000.' 'Mrs Adams is to be paid by way of special damage such amount of salary that she would have earned between 21 December 1994 and 23 January 1995 had she continued to be paid for that period of employment by the First Respondent.' 'No order for costs.']