Leslie v Graham [2002] FCA 32

Leslie v Graham [2002] FCA 32

Mr Lincoln Graham sexually harassed Ms Leslie because, while she was asleep and vulnerable in work-related accommodation at the Mollymook conference, he climbed onto her bed barely clad, placed his hand on her shoulder and kissed her, conduct that was an unwelcome sexual advance in circumstances where a reasonable person would have anticipated that she would be offended, humiliated and intimidated. The harassment was that of one employee by a fellow employee and was sufficiently connected with their common employment. Roger Graham & Associates Pty Limited was vicariously liable because it did not establish that it took all reasonable steps to prevent such conduct. The sex discrimination...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Application Under Subs 83 A(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (cth) to Enforce a Determination of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission / Final Judgment After Hearing De Novo in the Federal Court
Outcome
Application allowed in part; damages awarded against both respondents jointly and severally; other claims dismissed subject to costs.
Legal Topics
['sexual Harassment by Fellow Employee' 'vicarious Liability of Employer' 'sex Discrimination' 'victimisation by Termination of Employment' 'enforcement of Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Determination' 'hearsay in Civil Proceedings' 'damages']

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

Application Under Subs 83 A(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (cth) to Enforce a Determination of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission / Final Judgment After Hearing De Novo in the Federal Court

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Lincoln Graham sexually harassed Ms Leslie within the meaning of s 28A of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth).' 'Whether the conduct was unlawful sexual harassment by one employee of a fellow employee under subs 28B(2) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth).' 'Whether Roger Graham & Associates Pty Limited was vicariously liable under s 106 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth).' 'Whether Roger Graham & Associates Pty Limited unlawfully discriminated against Ms Leslie on the ground of sex.' 'Whether Roger Graham & Associates Pty Limited unlawfully victimised Ms Leslie by terminating her employment because of her complaint concerning the Mollymook incident.' 'What relief, including damages or declaratory relief, should be granted.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Lincoln Graham sexually harassed Ms Leslie because, while she was asleep and vulnerable in work-related accommodation at the Mollymook conference, he climbed onto her bed barely clad, placed his hand on her shoulder and kissed her, conduct that was an unwelcome sexual advance in circumstances where a reasonable person would have anticipated that she would be offended, humiliated and intimidated. The harassment was that of one employee by a fellow employee and was sufficiently connected with their common employment. Roger Graham & Associates Pty Limited was vicariously liable because it did not establish that it took all reasonable steps to prevent such conduct. The sex discrimination...

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; damages awarded against both respondents jointly and severally; other claims dismissed subject to costs.

Orders

  • ['Lincoln Graham and Roger Graham & Associates Pty Limited pay to the applicant $16,000 within 21 days of the date of this order.' 'The liability of Lincoln Graham and Roger Graham & Associates Pty Limited under paragraph 1 of this order be joint and several.' 'Subject to the issue of costs, the application be...