At the Forefront: Four Cases Shaping Australia’s Sexual Harassment Laws

This article discusses workplace sexual harassment, including sexual assault.

In 2023, workplace sexual harassment became explicitly prohibited under the Fair Work Act. The reforms created a new federal pathway for workers seeking redress, expanded employer responsibility for harassment committed by workers, and gave courts broad powers to award compensation, impose penalties, and make other orders they consider appropriate.

What legislation cannot do is show how any of this works once a real dispute begins. Would courts actually impose penalties? What is this harm worth? Who is responsible when nobody else saw it happen? And can a case change the workplace, or only compensate the person harmed in it?

Four cases, each run by a Working Women’s Centre, have begun to answer those questions.

Would the new law be enforced?

Mejia v Capital City Café-Bar

Working Women’s Centre at Women’s Legal Centre ACT

Valeria Mejia, a 23-year-old migrant from Colombia, was on a bridging visa and twelve weeks into a casual waitressing job at a Canberra café when she tried to raise a problem with her pay. She had received no payslips and could not reconcile what she was paid against the hours she had worked. The manager brushed her off and told her to go shopping, saying he would pay for whatever she wanted.

Later that day he sent the chef out to deal with the bins while she was washing dishes. He came up behind her, wrapped both arms around her and pinned her against the sink. He held his wallet open in front of her face and told her to take the money. She said no, but he pressed harder. Frightened, she took the smallest note, a $50, and pushed him away. He leant in and kissed her on the lips.

The chef came back a few minutes later. The manager told him he could go home. Ms Mejia said to him in Spanish: “Don’t leave me.” She never returned to the café.

Over the next two days the manager messaged her repeatedly, saying he was sorry, that it was the first and last time, asking if she would come back to work, and to keep his behaviour a secret from his wife.

He admitted the conduct on the morning of the hearing. The Court ordered $50,000 in compensation, a $9,390 penalty for the harassment, and $30,610 in penalties for underpaying her, giving false payslips, keeping no records, and a string of other breaches. His company had gone into liquidation the day before, so he was responsible for paying the full $90,000 himself.

The $9,390 penalty is the first published penalty imposed under the new Fair Work Act sexual harassment provision.

The judgment is notable for two further reasons. The Court treated Ms Mejia’s youth, visa status, limited financial resources and lack of social support as factors that made the conduct more serious, finding that her employer had leveraged his position of authority against these vulnerabilities. The Court also found his apologies were not genuine remorse. He wanted the incident kept quiet, wanted to avoid the consequences, did not want his wife to find out, and did not want to be short-staffed.

What is the harm worth?

Pariyar v Basnet

Working Women Queensland

Sunita Pariyar worked at a Brisbane restaurant owned and managed by Rojal Basnet. Over three months in 2022 he pressed her to leave her husband, groped her at work, assaulted her in his car outside her home and threatened to ruin her life if she told anyone. When she blocked his number, he came to her house in the middle of the night and assaulted her husband in the street. Days later, promising apologies and outstanding wages, he lured her to the Gold Coast on a fabricated errand. He took her phone, pressured her to drink, and raped her in a hotel room.

Mr Basnet claimed that the two of them had been in a secret consensual relationship. The Commission found this had no basis in fact.

Almost two years after she complained to the Human Rights Commission, Mr Basnet let himself into her home while the family slept upstairs, demanded to know why she had gone to the police, and pushed her twice. He has pleaded guilty to criminal charges arising from that incident and from the assault on her husband.

Commissioner Pratt found Mrs Pariyar now lives with severe PTSD, that her relationships with her husband and children have suffered significant and potentially permanent damage, and that she has had to leave the hospitality career she loved. He ordered $255,750: $170,000 for the harassment and discrimination, $50,000 for the victimisation, $35,000 in aggravated damages and $750 for medical costs.

It is one of the largest workplace sexual harassment compensation awards considered by the Commission.

Compensation awards in workplace sexual harassment matters have increased significantly over the past decade, particularly since the Federal Court’s landmark decision in Richardson v Oracle. The $170,000 awarded here was higher than any comparable award examined by the Commission.

The decision reflects a growing recognition that workplace sexual harassment can have profound, life-changing consequences, and that damages should recognise the reality of that harm.

Who is responsible, and what counts as proof?

Clarke v Beiler Constructions

Working Women’s Centre SA

Elisa Clarke was an adult apprentice carpenter and the only woman on the crew building a lodge on Kangaroo Island. In May 2023 a coworker asked her a crude and explicit question about her relationship with another man on the team. On another occasion he asked her for oral sex. Nobody else saw or heard either incident.

This circumstance helps explain why many workers are reluctant to pursue legal action. Harassment is rarely conducted in front of an audience. Many workers also do not make a formal complaint immediately because they fear the consequences of speaking up.

In June 2026 the Federal Court found both incidents proven. It weighed Ms Clarke’s account against the surrounding circumstances and gave weight to what she had told her son and parents shortly afterwards.

For workers concerned that a lack of witnesses means there is no case to bring, the significance of the decision is clear. The Court accepted Ms Clarke’s evidence and found the harassment had occurred despite there being no witnesses.

Clarke is the first fully contested Federal Court decision under the workplace sexual harassment provisions added to the Fair Work Act in 2023, making it one of the first major judgments explaining how the new laws operate in practice.

Beiler Constructions argued that the remarks were not unwelcome because Ms Clarke sometimes participated in workplace banter, including sexual jokes. The Court rejected that argument. Taking part in general workplace banter does not mean a worker has welcomed a sexual proposition.

The Court also found the company liable for its employee’s conduct, as well as underpayments and other workplace law breaches. Compensation and penalties will be determined at a later hearing.

Can a case change the workplace?

Cleary v Qube Ports

Working Women’s Centre at Women’s Legal Service Tasmania

Dana Cleary had worked for logistics company Qube Ports since 2017, most recently as a contractor. She alleges she was sexually harassed by a Qube employee after a work dinner in May 2023. After reporting the conduct, she stopped taking work during the investigation. Qube later told her there were no contractor or part-time roles available.

Most workplace sexual harassment cases focus on compensation for the person harmed. Ms Cleary is seeking something broader. Alongside compensation, she has asked the Federal Court to consider orders requiring Qube to strengthen its sexual harassment policies, training, reporting, and workplace practices.

Qube argued the Fair Work Act does not allow courts to make orders of that kind and asked for that part of the claim to be removed before the case reached trial.

In May 2026, Justice Horan refused. He held that, on the current state of the law, it could not be said that remedies of this nature were unavailable and that any decision about what orders are appropriate should be made after hearing the full case.

The decision leaves open a significant possibility: that workplace sexual harassment cases may be able to do more than compensate an individual worker. They may also be used to address the workplace systems, policies and practices that contributed to the harm.

The significance of the issues raised was reflected by the decision being circulated to judges on the Federal Court’s Employment and Industrial Relations list.

At the forefront

The first cases brought under a major legal reform often help determine how that reform works in practice. In these four matters, Working Women’s Centres and specialist feminist legal services have helped answer questions that Australian courts had not previously considered.

The workers who brought these cases were seeking justice for what happened to them. In doing so, they have helped strengthen the protections available to others. The decisions emerging from these cases will shape what workers, employers and courts can expect when workplace sexual harassment occurs.

If you have experienced sexual harassment at work, contact your union if you are a member. If you haven’t had a chance to join your union, your local Working Women’s Centre can provide free and confidential advice.

Author: Yen Pham, Advocacy and Policy Officer, Working Women’s Centre Australia