Cooper v. Western Area Local Health Network [2012] NSWADT 39

Cooper v. Western Area Local Health Network [2012] NSWADT 39

Provision of an extremely sexually explicit note to a co-worker during a work event constitutes unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature and sexual harassment under the Act; however, the employer was not vicariously liable as it took sufficient steps to train, inform, and discipline staff regarding harassment and the Code of Conduct.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Complaint / Final Decision
Outcome
Sexual harassment complaint substantiated against second respondent; dismissed against first respondent.
Legal Topics
['sexual Harassment' 'vicarious Liability' 'workplace Policies and Training' 'provision of Explicit Material at Work']
['anti Discrimination' 'employment Law'] ['sexual Harassment' 'vicarious Liability' 'workplace Policies and Training' 'provision of Explicit Material at Work']

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 / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether provision of a sexually explicit note constituted sexual harassment under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977' 'Whether the employer was vicariously liable for the actions of its employee under section 53 of the Act' 'Appropriate quantum of damages to award for substantiated complaint']

Ratio Decidendi

Provision of an extremely sexually explicit note to a co-worker during a work event constitutes unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature and sexual harassment under the Act; however, the employer was not vicariously liable as it took sufficient steps to train, inform, and discipline staff regarding harassment and the Code of Conduct.

Court Disposition

Sexual harassment complaint substantiated against second respondent; dismissed against first respondent.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's complaint of sexual harassment is substantiated as against the second respondent." "The applicant's complaint of sexual harassment is dismissed as against the first respondent." 'The second respondent is to pay the sum of $10,000 to the applicant.']