Steel v Director General, NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet [2012] NSWADT 82

Steel v Director General, NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet [2012] NSWADT 82

Leave was refused because the complaint lacked merit: even if the words alleged were said, the alleged imputation that Mr Steel and Mr Z were in a homosexual relationship was unlikely to arise; even if it did, the single private workplace feedback discussion was highly unlikely to be found to be conduct of a sexual nature, and the reasonable person test would not be met. As the complaint against Mr Tibbitts lacked merit, the complaint against the employer also lacked merit.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Complaint of Sexual Harassment / Application for Leave for Complaint to Proceed After President Declined the Complaint as Lacking in Substance
Outcome
Leave for the applicant's complaint of sexual harassment to proceed is refused.
Legal Topics
['sexual Harassment' 'leave to Proceed' 'conduct of a Sexual Nature' 'reasonable Person Test' 'vicarious Liability']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'employment Law' 'administrative Law'] ['sexual Harassment' 'leave to Proceed' 'conduct of a Sexual Nature' 'reasonable Person Test' 'vicarious Liability']

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 Sexual Harassment / Application for Leave for Complaint to Proceed After President Declined the Complaint as Lacking in Substance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the alleged comments imputed that the applicant and a fellow employee were in a homosexual relationship.' 'Whether the alleged conduct was unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature in relation to the applicant.' 'Whether a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would have anticipated that the applicant would be offended, humiliated or intimidated.' 'Whether there was merit in the complaint against the employer on the basis of vicarious liability.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the complaint lacked merit: even if the words alleged were said, the alleged imputation that Mr Steel and Mr Z were in a homosexual relationship was unlikely to arise; even if it did, the single private workplace feedback discussion was highly unlikely to be found to be conduct of a sexual nature, and the reasonable person test would not be met. As the complaint against Mr Tibbitts lacked merit, the complaint against the employer also lacked merit.

Court Disposition

Leave for the applicant's complaint of sexual harassment to proceed is refused.

Orders

  • ["Leave for the applicant's complaint of sexual harassment to proceed is refused."]