Ashley v Lowes Manhattan Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 56 min read

CITATION: Ashley v Lowes Manhattan Pty Ltd [2010] NSWADT 242
DIVISION: Equal Opportunity Division
PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Lynette Ashley

RESPONDENT
Lowes Manhattan Pty Ltd
FILE NUMBER: 091074
HEARING DATES: 22, 23, 24 March 2010 and 26 May 2010
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 26 May 2010
 
DATE OF DECISION: 

12 October 2010
BEFORE: Huntsman C - Judicial Member; Weule B - Non-Judicial Member; Schneeweiss J - Non-Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS: Victimisation - causation - whether manager was victimised by employer for reporting sexual harassment complaints made by junior staff - whether detriment suffered
LEGISLATION CITED: Section 50 Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
CASES CITED: Borg v Commissioner, Department of Corrective Services & Anor [2002] NSWADT 42
Hunt v Rail Corporation of New South Wales [2007] NSW ADT 152 at [182]
Nicholls and Nicholls v Director General, Department of Education And Training (No 2) [2009] ADTAP 20
Shaikh v Commissioner, NSW Fire Brigades (1996) EOC 92-808
Dutt v Central Coast Area Health Service [2002] NSWADT 133
Chi v Technical and Further Education Commission (No 3) [2009] NSWADT 271
St Josephs Hospital Ltd v Correy (No 2) [2009] NSWADTAP 58
Sivananthan v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2001] NSWADT 44
REPRESENTATION:

APPLICANT
Mr Perry, instructed by Moya de Luca-Leonard, lawyers

RESPONDENT
Mr Tindley, Retail Traders Association, Qld

ORDERS: The application is dismissed.


REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1 On 21 November 2008 Ms Ashley, the Applicant, lodged a complaint against Lowes-Manhattan Propriety Limited (“Lowes”), the Respondent, with the Anti-DiscriminationBoard, alleging that she was victimised in employment. The Applicant had been employed by the Respondent as a manager of one of the Respondent’s retail stores. On 5 June 2009 Ms Ashley requested the matter be referred to the Equal Opportunity Division of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. In her complaint to the Anti-Discrimination Board Ms Ashley alleged that after she advised management of Lowes that casual employees had raised allegations with her that they had been sexually harassed by an assistant store manager, she was told she would be transferred to another store. The Applicant had for many years been the store manager of the Cronulla store. At a meeting on 26 August 2008 with senior management of Lowes the Applicant was advised she was to be relocated to the Menai store.

The Applicant’s case

2 The Applicant gave evidence in support of her case in oral and written form. Ms Ashley’s written evidence consisted of an affidavit of 28 January 2008 (an annexure to the affidavit included a letter by Ms Ashley to the Respondent’s managing director, Mr Mueller, dated 29 August where she detailed her experience of relevant events); and a lengthy affidavit of 17 March 2010 where she provides a response to the written evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses. A number of documents were annexed to the affidavit of 29 March 2010 . Those documents included copies of correspondence, medical reports, documents relating to a worker's compensation claim and other material relating to Ms Ashley's employment with the Respondent. She also provided evidence from witnesses including Dr Lana…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ashley v Lowes Manhattan Pty Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2010] NSWADT 242
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Ashley, sought to appeal a decision that dismissed her claim for compensation against her employer, Lowes Manhattan Pty Ltd, based on the grounds of victimisation following her reporting of sexual harassment complaints made by junior staff. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether Ashley's claims of victimisation were substantiated and whether she had indeed suffered any detriment as a result of her actions in reporting the harassment.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had established that she was subjected to victimisation by her employer following her reporting of the sexual harassment complaints. This involved examining the evidence of any detriment suffered by Ashley and whether such detriment was directly linked to her actions in reporting the harassment. The court had to consider whether the employer's conduct towards the applicant could be classified as victimisation under the relevant legislation, and whether the detriment suffered by the applicant was a consequence of her reporting the harassment.

In reaching its decision, the court meticulously reviewed the evidence presented regarding the nature and extent of the detriment suffered by Ashley, as well as the employer's response to the sexual harassment complaints. The court found that the evidence did not substantiate that the detriment, if any, was causally linked to the applicant's reporting of the harassment, nor was it sufficient to classify the employer's conduct as victimisation. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient causal connection between her reporting of the harassment and the detriment she claimed to have suffered. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original decision, finding that the applicant's claims of victimisation were not supported by the evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.