AHRC announces compliance drive for high-risk industries
The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has released a statement announcing its focus on the retail trade and accommodation and food services industries in the 2025-26 financial year.
These industries will be the focus of the AHRC’s compliance and enforcement strategies in relation to the positive duty under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). The positive duty obliges employers to take reasonable and proportionate steps to eliminate sexual harassment, sexist behaviour, sex discrimination, and victimisation connected to work.
The AHRC has noted that these industries have heightened risks of work-related sexual harassment, citing findings of unlawful conduct during formal inquiries in the past financial year. It notes that they have gathered information from workers, other regulators, and media reports to trigger their compliance powers.
Panic attack sparks unfair dismissal claim
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a case involving a worker who was dismissed after leaving work early during a mental health breakdown.
The breakdown was triggered by allegations made by colleagues that the worker had been sleeping during her previous shift, which she maintains were false. Subsequently, the worker started crying and couldn’t continue working. She left the premises and texted her supervisor to let them know.
Management then commenced dismissal proceedings without investigating or seeking the worker’s perspective.
The worker provided a medical certificate covering three days of sick leave for anxiety and depression and informed the employer she would not be available on 14 September due to a doctor’s appointment. The employer insisted on a meeting on 14 September. The worker explained she was unavailable but was dismissed after failing to attend the meeting.
The FWC found that there was no valid reason relating to the dismissal, and it was procedurally unfair. The worker was ordered to be reinstated and awarded backpay.
This decision highlights the importance of employers properly assessing mental health situations and following fair procedures before making dismissals.
Manager claims unfair dismissal after heated meeting
The FWC recently dealt with an unfair dismissal case involving a manager who was terminated following a heated workplace confrontation with new business ownership.
The manager argued that she was unfairly dismissed after challenging unrealistic business targets set by new management and being subjected to aggressive and threatening behaviour during a workplace meeting. During this meeting, the business owner allegedly became agitated and swore at the manager after she criticised his business targets. He indicated at the end of the meeting that he did not want her to return to the office and later texted her confirming her termination.
The FWC found that the dismissal was unjust due to the absence of any procedural fairness, and unreasonable because there was no valid reason to support a dismissal.
This case highlights the importance of following proper dismissal procedures and the risks of aggressive workplace behaviour.
Editorial note: Both these unfair dismissal cases could have been avoided if these organisations had trained Grievance Officers who could have managed these workplace issues professionally.
Disability discrimination complaint dismissed by NCAT
In a recent disability discrimination case before the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT), an employee alleged that Heartbeat Centre Coffs Harbour Limited engaged in unlawful discrimination against him based on a disability, being a shoulder injury.
The employee’s role was to drive Heartbeat’s truck to collect and deliver items to either be donated or sold. He alleged that Heartbeat engaged in unlawful discrimination against him by treating him less favourably than someone who did not have his disability, and dismissing him from his employment because of the shoulder injury.
The NCAT found that Heartbeat did not contravene the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) because it was unaware that the applicant had a disability. It found that the employer did not subject the employee to any detriment because of any known fact or circumstance relating to his shoulder injury or alleged exacerbation of that injury.
EEO Specialists works with organisations to enable safe and respectful workplaces. We offer a range of in-person workshops as well as online courses. If you would like to have a confidential discussion about workplace behaviour and compliance, please or email franca@equalopportunitytraining.com.au
Former NT judge accused of sexually harassing associate
A former Supreme Court judge in the NT is facing accusations of sexual harassment from a former associate.
The associate alleges the former judicial officer took photos of her without consent, directed her to attend social functions with him outside of work hours, and made inappropriate comments about her. The alleged comments included asking whether she “liked having massages” and suggesting the pair travel to see a concert and “share a bed to save money”. It is understood that an internal investigation in the NT Attorney-General’s Department made a positive finding of sexual harassment, on the available evidence.
The woman’s lawyers said the experience led her to walk away from a career in law and required her to have psychological treatment for the impact of her experience at the court. Her lawyers also allege that the woman was told to speak directly to the judge involved, who suggested she swap with a male associate. The woman has now lodged a complaint with the NT Anti-Discrimination Commission against the former judge, two other senior officers, the NT government and the Commissioner for Public Employment.
Through the claim, she is seeking an apology for harassment and discrimination endured, and damages for injury, distress and the loss of her legal career.
Professor wins reinstatement despite 7-year-old misconduct
The FWC recently dealt with a case involving a university professor who was dismissed for engaging in inappropriate communications with a PhD student in 2017. He was dismissed in December 2024 following a formal complaint.
Whilst an investigation did not find that the conduct constituted sexual harassment, the professor’s messages to the student contravened the university’s appropriate workplace behaviour policy. University officials subsequently met with the professor and gave him a summary of the investigation report. The professor was terminated without notice on the grounds of serious misconduct.
The FWC considered that there was a valid reason for dismissal, but the dismissal was harsh due to the significant time gap between the misconduct and the dismissal. Additionally, the professor had an unblemished record during that period. The professor was reinstated with limited backpay.
Editorial note: This case is an alert for employers who may be considering dismissals based on historical misconduct, particularly when significant time has passed and an employee has demonstrated reformed behaviour.
Spotlight on pregnancy discrimination and unfair dismissal
Two recent matters have highlighted the dangers of discriminating against and unfairly dismissing pregnant workers.
Matter 1: A senior HR manager from Brisbane is preparing to file a pregnancy discrimination claim against childcare operator Busy Bees, alleging that her employment was terminated one hour after informing the company she was pregnant.
The manager alleges that she was hired by Busy Bees in April 2025. Just days after signing her contract, she discovered she was pregnant. When she informed Busy Bees and disclosed her intention to take 6 months’ parental leave later in the year, she was told: “it’s not going to work out”. It is also alleged she was advised not to disclose the pregnancy when seeking to return to her former role. The manager plans to file a pregnancy discrimination and breach of contract complaint with the AHRC shortly.
Under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and the Fair Work Act 2009, it is unlawful to treat an employee unfavourably due to pregnancy or potential pregnancy.
Matter 2: The Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) in NSW has initiated legal proceedings against O’Malley’s Operations and its operations manager for allegedly failing to comply with an order to compensate a worker who was unfairly dismissed because of her pregnancy.
The worker was abruptly dismissed in May 2023, shortly after the business became aware of her pregnancy. In September 2023, the FWC found that O’Malley’s Operations had unfairly dismissed the affected employee and ordered the company to pay her $6,095 in compensation within 14 days. The company has allegedly failed to make the required payment.
If found liable, O’Malley’s Operations faces a maximum penalty of $93,900, while the operations manager could be fined up to $18,780. In addition to the penalties, the FWO is also seeking a court order requiring the company to pay the outstanding compensation to the worker, along with interest.
Fund manager allegedly sexually harassed staff
A senior manager at Prime Super allegedly made repeated unwelcome sexual advances towards several colleagues. One colleague claimed she was made redundant after complaining about the sexual harassment. Despite complaining about the manager’s behaviour, Prime allegedly never followed through on its repeated promises to appoint a counsellor to help her.
Court documents claimed that Prime breached general protections under the Fair Work Act by:
- Taking adverse action against the employee.
- Failing to adequately address her complaints.
- Dismissing her for making those complaints.
The parties have since settled confidentially. It is unclear whether the manager still works at Prime.
CEO takes his charity to FWC amid claims of toxic workplace
World Vision Australia CEO has taken his own charity to the FWC, after the organisation confirmed it had ended his tenure as CEO.
The case comes amid wider claims of a toxic workplace at the charity. The CEO was recently the subject of bullying complaints which World Vision independently investigated but were not substantiated.
Workers have alleged that the organisation is plagued by bullying complaints and staff exits. One former employee said the work environment is unsafe, having seen and experienced bullying firsthand.
The outcome of the FWC hearing is yet to be made public.
ADF whistle-blowers speak out about sexual violence failures
Multiple women have recently spoken up about sexual abuse in the Australian Defence Force (ADF).
One woman shared that her career in the ADF had been destroyed because she alleged she had been raped at a remote base in the NT. Despite rape charges being laid, the perpetrator was allowed to remain on the base, forcing her to live in fear. Other women highlighted the failure of the ADF to protect them against sexual assault and harassment over the years.
With one in three women in the ADF having reported sexual assault or harassment, the ADF is being called on to acknowledge systemic failure, hold perpetrators and bystanders to account, centre survivor voices and take transparent and immediate action.
Doctors among those targeted by increasing Islamophobia
A recent study has found that three in four Muslim healthcare workers face discrimination for their religious beliefs.
The research showed that Muslim healthcare workers are disproportionately affected by Islamophobia and discrimination, particularly those from cultural and linguistically diverse communities.
The Australian Islamic Medical Association reported a sharp increase in Islamophobia in the wake of recent geopolitical events. Islamophobia in Australia has doubled in assaults, abuse and threats between January 2023 and November 2024 and previous reporting periods.
The authors of this study have urged healthcare leaders, hospital administrators, and policymakers to make the necessary changes from within the industry.
