Denmeade v Kempsey Shire Council & Ors (No.2) [2003] NSWADT 225

Denmeade v Kempsey Shire Council & Ors (No.2) [2003] NSWADT 225

The Tribunal found that, save for one instance, the applicant did not suffer less favourable treatment on the ground of sex, nor was she sexually harassed within the statutory meaning. The Council failed to facilitate the applicant's return to work and investigate her complaints satisfactorily, but these failings were not gender-based nor amounted to actionable detriment. However, the Tribunal found that a meeting convened on 28 January 1999 focusing on the applicant's complaints constituted 'detriment' and was held for the operative reason that she had complained; thus, it amounted to victimisation under s 50 of the Act for the purposes of that incident only.

Parties
Applicant: Lindy Denmeade; First Respondent: Kempsey Shire Council; Second Respondent: Keith Finnie; Third Respondent: Andrew Evans; Fourth Respondent: Warren Howe; Fifth Respondent: Chris Gorman; Sixth Respondent: Kevin Shaw; Seventh Respondent: Gary Grant
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Sex Discrimination and Victimisation — Equal Opportunity Division / Final Judgment on Substantive Claims
Outcome
The complaints of discrimination (including sex harassment and victimisation) against the second to seventh respondents are dismissed. The complaint of victimisation (relation to Allegation 10—the January 1999 meeting) against the first respondent (Council) is upheld. All other complaints against the first...
Legal Topics
Sex Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, Victimisation, Vicarious Liability, Procedural Fairness
Anti Discrimination Law Employment Law Sex Discrimination Sexual Harassment Victimisation Vicarious Liability Procedural Fairness

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lindy Denmeade

Applicant

Kempsey Shire Council

First Respondent

Keith Finnie

Second Respondent

Andrew Evans

Third Respondent

Warren Howe

Fourth Respondent

Chris Gorman

Fifth Respondent

Kevin Shaw

Sixth Respondent

Gary Grant

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Sex Discrimination and Victimisation — Equal Opportunity Division / Final Judgment on Substantive Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was discriminated against on the ground of sex in contravention of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was sexually harassed within the meaning of the Act
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was victimised contrary to s 50 of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that, save for one instance, the applicant did not suffer less favourable treatment on the ground of sex, nor was she sexually harassed within the statutory meaning. The Council failed to facilitate the applicant's return to work and investigate her complaints satisfactorily, but these failings were not gender-based nor amounted to actionable detriment. However, the Tribunal found that a meeting convened on 28 January 1999 focusing on the applicant's complaints constituted 'detriment' and was held for the operative reason that she had complained; thus, it amounted to victimisation under s 50 of the Act for the purposes of that incident only.

Court Disposition

The complaints of discrimination (including sex harassment and victimisation) against the second to seventh respondents are dismissed. The complaint of victimisation (relation to Allegation 10—the January 1999 meeting) against the first respondent (Council) is upheld. All other complaints against the first...

Orders

  • The complaints of discrimination on the ground of sex, sex harassment and victimisation made against the second to the seventh respondent (inclusive) are dismissed.
  • The complaint of aiding and abetting made against the seventh respondent is dismissed.