D -v- Berkeley Challenge Pty Ltd [2001] NSWADT 92

D -v- Berkeley Challenge Pty Ltd [2001] NSWADT 92

The Tribunal found that Mrs D was subjected to sexual harassment on 29 June 1998 by her co-worker Herrera within the meaning of the Act. The respondent, Berkeley Challenge Pty Ltd, was held liable for Mr Herrera's misconduct by implied authorisation and failure to take reasonable steps to prevent it, thus breaching s 22B and s 53(1), and further found that Mrs D was victimised by her transfer and dismissal in breach of s 50 of the Act.

Parties
Applicant: Mrs D; Respondent: Berkeley Challenge Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Complaint / Principal Matter Final Decision
Outcome
Applicant successful; respondent found liable for sexual harassment and victimisation.
Legal Topics
Sexual Harassment, Victimisation, Workplace Discrimination
Anti Discrimination Law Employment Law Sexual Harassment Victimisation Workplace Discrimination

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs D

Applicant

Berkeley Challenge Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Complaint / Principal Matter Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace contrary to s 22B of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was unlawfully discriminated against on the ground of sex contrary to s 25 of the Act
  3. 3 Whether the respondent victimised the applicant in breach of s 50 of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that Mrs D was subjected to sexual harassment on 29 June 1998 by her co-worker Herrera within the meaning of the Act. The respondent, Berkeley Challenge Pty Ltd, was held liable for Mr Herrera's misconduct by implied authorisation and failure to take reasonable steps to prevent it, thus breaching s 22B and s 53(1), and further found that Mrs D was victimised by her transfer and dismissal in breach of s 50 of the Act.

Court Disposition

Applicant successful; respondent found liable for sexual harassment and victimisation.

Orders

  • Respondent to pay applicant $26,800 within twenty-one days of the date of decision.