The many doors to a sexual harassment claim
with
WARNING: THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS SENSITIVE SUBJECT MATTERS
The many doors to a sexual harassment claim — and what the recent cases are telling leaders
For most of the last decade, a leader could treat sexual harassment as a single problem with a single response: a complaint comes in, it is investigated, it is resolved. That model is now out of step with the law. The same conduct can today be pursued through several different legal channels at once — each with its own threshold, its own remedy, and its own view of who is responsible. A café owner, a storage-facility contractor, a fast-food franchisee and a casino operator have all learned this in the past year, in four different courts and tribunals, under three different statutes.
This guide is built to get a leadership team up to speed quickly. It sets out the channels a claim can travel, lists the significant Australian decisions of the past six to twelve months with their rulings, draws out what the courts are saying about seriousness, and points to the proactive duties — and the resources — that now define a defensible position.
The channels: how a claim can now be brought
A single incident of workplace sexual harassment can give rise to action through more than one of the following.
The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Since 6 March 2023, section 527D expressly prohibits sexual harassment “in connection with work.” It is a civil penalty provision: a court can order pecuniary penalties and uncapped compensation. Protection extends to employees, prospective employees, contractors, work-experience students and volunteers. Under section 527E an employer can be vicariously liable for harassment by its employees or agents unless it proves it took all reasonable steps to prevent it, and under section 550 individuals “involved in” a contravention — including directors and managers — can be personally liable. The Fair Work Commission can also make stop sexual harassment orders and deal with disputes.
The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). The original federal pathway remains. A worker can complain to the Australian Human Rights Commission, which attempts conciliation; unresolved matters proceed to the Federal Circuit and Family Court or the Federal Court. The Act prohibits sexual harassment (section 28A), sex-based harassment (section 28AA) and subjecting a person to a hostile workplace environment on the ground of sex (section 28M). Since 12 December 2023 it also carries a positive duty (section 47C) that the AHRC can enforce.
State and territory anti-discrimination law. Each state and territory has its own scheme — for example the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). Complaints run through the state human rights body and, if unresolved, to a state tribunal. In Queensland, work-related matters are now heard by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. New South Wales has created a dedicated bullying and sexual harassment jurisdiction in its Industrial Relations Commission for workers outside the federal system.
Work health and safety law. Sexual harassment is a psychosocial hazard. Under the model WHS laws, a person conducting a business or undertaking must eliminate or minimise the risk so far as is reasonably practicable. This channel is enforced by the WHS regulator, not by the worker, and is about prevention and prosecution rather than individual compensation.
The criminal law. Where conduct crosses into sexual assault, stalking or related offences, it is a matter for police and the criminal courts — a channel that sits alongside, not instead of, the others.
The practical point for leaders: choosing to manage harassment as “an HR matter” does not contain it to one forum. The same facts can surface as a Fair Work contravention, a discrimination complaint and a WHS failing simultaneously
What’s happened: the rulings of the past twelve months
The following Australian decisions, handed down between August 2025 and June 2026, show the channels in operation. The table is a quick reference; the detail follows.
Case | Channel | Ruling | What it marks |
Magar v Khan [2025] FCA 874 | Federal Court — Sex Discrimination Act | $305,000 (record) | Pervasive culture is part of the harm |
Mejia v Capital City Café-Bar [2026] FedCFamC2G 468 | FCFCOA — Fair Work s 527D (first case) | $90,000 | One incident is enough |
Eklom v Marshall [2026] FedCFamC2G 772 | FCFCOA — Fair Work s 527D (second case) | $116,000 | Contractors and customers count |
[2026] FedCFamC2G 889 | FCFCOA — Fair Work s 527D | $125,000 | Reasonable steps must be real |
Loquias v The Star [2026] QIRC 023 | QIRC — Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) | ~$127k total | Recorded training is not genuine training |
Magar v Khan [2025] FCA 874 — Federal Court of Australia, Bromwich J, 1 August 2025. Sex Discrimination Act. A worker aged 21, in Australia on a student visa, was sexually harassed and victimised by the owner and sole director of a Mad Mex franchise over an 18-month period; the corporate employer was in liquidation, so the proceeding continued against the director personally. The Court awarded $305,000 in total — the largest sexual harassment award under the Sex Discrimination Act to date — comprising $160,000 in general damages (itself a record for that head), $130,000 for economic loss, and $5,000 in aggravated damages. Justice Bromwich found a workplace culture that “tolerated overt and outspoken sexist and boorish behaviour.”
Lesson for workplaces: a tolerated, sexualised culture produces the largest awards — culture is treated as part of the harm, not its backdrop.
Mejia v Capital City Café-Bar [2026] FedCFamC2G 468 — Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Mansfield J, 26 March 2026. Fair Work Act, section 527D. The first concluded decision under the new provision. A 23-year-old casual waitress on a bridging visa, about twelve weeks into the job, queried her pay; the same day, alone in the kitchen, the café’s sole director hugged her from behind, pinned her to the sink, pressed money on her and kissed her. By consent, the Court ordered the director to pay $90,000 personally — $50,000 in compensation, a $9,390 penalty for the section 527D breach, and $30,610 for related wage and record-keeping contraventions. The worker’s youth, visa status and financial insecurity were treated as matters that increased the seriousness.
Lesson for workplaces: a single incident is enough to attract both a penalty and compensation, and a “no prior pattern” position will not defeat liability.
Eklom v Marshall [2026] FedCFamC2G 772 — Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Vasta J, May 2026. Fair Work Act, section 527D. The second decision under the provision, and the first to apply it to people who were not the worker’s employer. A storage-facility site manager was subjected to homophobic and sexualised remarks and unwanted physical contact by a contractor and, later, a customer. The manager reported the conduct; the Court found the employer’s response inadequate, and he was ultimately dismissed. Both respondents were found to have contravened section 527D and ordered to pay a combined $116,000 — $90,000 in compensation plus a $13,000 penalty each.
Lesson for workplaces: harassment is unlawful regardless of who commits it, and a worker’s complaint about a third party puts the employer’s response on trial.
[2026] FedCFamC2G 889 — Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Liveris J, 21 May 2026. Fair Work Act, section 527D. (This matter concerns a worker’s mental health and is referred to here by citation only.) A worker on a two-week job trial at a Western Australian business, whom the employer knew to be vulnerable, was subjected within days to sexualised questioning and unwanted physical contact by the sole director. The Court awarded $125,000. On the question of reasonable steps, the business could point to no policy, no training and no preventive measures.
Lesson for workplaces: “reasonable steps” must be real and documented, and a vulnerability the employer is aware of raises the standard expected of it.
Loquias v The Star Entertainment Group and John Dwyer [2026] QIRC 023 — Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, 31 January 2026. Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). (Referenced for the reasonable-steps point; this matter also concerns the worker’s mental health and is cited rather than named in narrative.) A 21-year-old casino games dealer was repeatedly harassed by a gaming-area manager. The employer was held vicariously liable; its reasonable-steps defence failed — not because its policies or training content were wrong, but because of how the training was delivered. The Commission found that completing online modules while simultaneously working was “below basic training expectations to the extent that it cannot be considered reasonable.”
Lesson for workplaces: reasonable steps must operate in practice — a completion record is not the same as genuine training.
What it means: how the courts are judging seriousness
Read together, these decisions are not five versions of the same case. They mark out distinct ways the courts now assess seriousness and liability.
One incident is enough. Mejia establishes that, under section 527D, a single act can attract both penalty and compensation. The “isolated incident, no pattern” position that organisations once relied on may go to the size of a penalty; it does not defeat the contravention.
It is not about who did it. Eklom confirms that section 527D reaches contractors and customers, not just employers and colleagues. The test is whether the conduct occurred “in connection with” the person being a worker. Third-party conduct is squarely within a workplace’s risk picture.
Vulnerability raises the stakes. In both Mejia and matter 889, the worker’s age, insecure work status, financial position or known vulnerability lifted the seriousness of the conduct and, in 889, sharpened the failure to take reasonable steps. Vulnerability is no longer background; it is a legally relevant concentration of risk.
Culture is evidence. Magar produced the largest award by treating a tolerated, sexualised culture as part of the harm. This aligns with decades of organisational research: psychologist John Pryor’s person-by-situation work (Pryor, LaVite & Stoller, 1993) found that an individual’s propensity to harass is converted into actual conduct largely by a permissive climate — the environment, not just the individual, predicts whether harassment occurs. Courts are now reading culture the way the research has long described it.
Reasonable steps must be real, not recorded. Loquias and matter 889 are the two sides of the same coin. In 889 there were no measures at all; in Loquias there were policies and training, but the training was delivered in a way that could not genuinely prevent the conduct. Both failed. The standard is operational effectiveness, not documentary existence.
Liability is personal. Across Mejia, Eklom and Magar, individuals — sole directors, a contractor, a customer — were ordered to pay, several of them personally, and several after the corporate employer had gone into liquidation. Accessorial liability under section 550 and personal liability under the discrimination and Fair Work regimes mean a corporate shield is not assured.
The proactive duty: prevention is now the legal standard
The cases sit on top of a legislative shift from responding to harassment to preventing it.
Commonwealth positive duty. Since 12 December 2023, the Sex Discrimination Act has required employers and PCBUs to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate sexual harassment, sex-based harassment, hostile environments and related victimisation as far as possible — and the AHRC has powers to enforce it.
Work health and safety. The model WHS regime treats sexual harassment as a psychosocial hazard requiring control measures. Safe Work Australia’s model Code of Practice on sexual and gender-based harassment (2024) is read together with the Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work Code, and is admissible in court as evidence of what a duty-holder should have known.
Queensland — the proactive front-runner. Since 1 March 2025, the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 (Qld) (section 55H) requires every PCBU with an identified risk to prepare and maintain a written sexual harassment prevention plan — stating the risks, the control measures, the matters considered and the consultation undertaken, in a form workers can access and understand, and reviewed after an incident. Queensland is the first state to mandate a written plan. The Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) adds a positive duty to eliminate unlawful discrimination and harassment from 1 July 2025.
New South Wales — proving your controls. From 1 July 2026, NSW employers must comply with approved WHS Codes of Practice or be able to demonstrate they have implemented a standard equivalent to, or higher than, the Code. Simply “considering” a Code will no longer be enough — the burden shifts to the business to prove its controls.
Victoria — restricting secrecy. The Restricting Non-Disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Act 2025 (Vic) limits confidentiality clauses in sexual harassment settlements from 1 July 2026, allowing secrecy only where the affected worker requests it.
The common thread is unmistakable. The question a regulator or court now asks is not “how did you respond once you knew?” but “what were you doing to prevent this before it happened, and can you prove it?”
The board-level read
This is now a governance issue, not only a management one. The People + Science Boardroom Psychological Safety Index 2025 (n = 944 directors and senior executives) found that 53% of boards operate with a blame culture, only 8% demonstrate genuine behavioural accountability, and only 12% have effective bias governance — and that weak psychological safety acts as a roughly three-times multiplier on psychosocial hazards. A board that cannot see where its vulnerable workers sit, or cannot evidence that its controls actually work, is carrying the exposure these cases describe.
Resources to assist business
- Australian Human Rights Commission — Guidelines for Complying with the Positive Duty: the clearest plain-English guide to “reasonable and proportionate measures.” humanrights.gov.au
- Safe Work Australia — model Code of Practice: Sexual and Gender-based Harassment, and Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work: the WHS benchmark for prevention. safeworkaustralia.gov.au
- Respect@Work: practical tools and the framework behind the reforms. respectatwork.gov.au
- Fair Work Commission — sexual harassment and stop orders: the dispute and stop-order pathway. fwc.gov.au
- State WHS regulators (for example WorkSafe Queensland and SafeWork NSW) for the prevention-plan and Code requirements in your jurisdiction.
- People + Science — Handling Complaints: A Guide for Workplaces and the First Response field kit: for the investigation and response architecture that Eklom and Loquias show must work in practice.
Partner with People Plus Science
The defensible position in 2026 is not a better complaints process — although you need one (see our resources page for the toolkit) . It is documented, tested prevention: knowing where your risk concentrates, putting controls in place, and being able to prove they work. The People + Science Sexual Harassment Prevention Plan & Positive Duty Audit maps your obligations across the Fair Work Act, the WHS regime and Queensland’s 1 March 2025 requirement, and shows where your controls fall short before a court does.
→ Register your interest in a Positive Duty Audit.
This article is general information, not legal advice. It summarises published decisions and legislation as at June 2026. For advice on your circumstances, consult a qualified legal practitioner.
References
- Magar v Khan [2025] FCA 874 (Federal Court of Australia, Bromwich J, 1 August 2025).
- Mejia v Capital City Café-Bar [2026] FedCFamC2G 468 (Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Mansfield J, 26 March 2026).
- Eklom v Marshall [2026] FedCFamC2G 772 (Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Vasta J, May 2026).
- [2026] FedCFamC2G 889 (Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Liveris J, 21 May 2026).
- Loquias v The Star Entertainment Group and John Dwyer [2026] QIRC 023 (Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, 31 January 2026).
- Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 527D, 527E, 550.
- Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) ss 28A, 28AA, 28M, 47C.
- Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 (Qld) s 55H; Work Health and Safety (Sexual Harassment) Amendment Regulation 2024 (Qld).
- Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld); Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW); Restricting Non-Disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Act 2025 (Vic).
- Safe Work Australia, model Code of Practice: Sexual and Gender-based Harassment (2024); Code of Practice: Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work.
- Pryor, J.B., LaVite, C.M. & Stoller, L.M. (1993). A social psychological analysis of sexual harassment: The person/situation interaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42(1), 68–83.
- Fitzgerald, L.F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C.L., Gelfand, M.J. & Magley, V.J. (1997). Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(4), 578–589.
- People + Science, Boardroom Psychological Safety Index 2025 (n = 944).
“Neuroscience is the foundation for the approach we bring to every engagement. Partnering with our leaders to provide the insights that allow for improved decision making resulting in organisational resilience. Carolyn Grant
Interested in Learning More?
Book a briefing on psycho-social assessments and organisational resilience today. Mitigate your greatest risk and drive high performing, thriving teams.
