Brown v Richmond Golf Club & Anor

The applicant in this case sought relief for complaints of sexual harassment, victimisation, and sex discrimination against her employer, the first respondent, and her former supervisor, the second respondent. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The applicant alleged that she was subjected to sexual harassment by the second respondent, who used inappropriate language towards her. She also claimed that she was victimised by the first respondent after reporting the harassment. Additionally, the applicant alleged that she was treated less favourably than her male colleagues because of her gender.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant's complaints of sexual harassment, victimisation, and sex discrimination were substantiated. The court considered the evidence presented by both parties and evaluated the credibility of the witnesses. The court also examined the relevant legislation and case law to determine the legal principles that applied to the case. Ultimately, the court had to decide whether the applicant's complaints were justified and whether any remedies should be ordered.

The court found that the complaints of victimisation and sex discrimination made against the first respondent were not substantiated. The court accepted the evidence of the first respondent that the applicant was not treated less favourably than her male colleagues and that any differences in treatment were due to legitimate business reasons. The court also found that the first respondent did not take any adverse action against the applicant after she reported the harassment by the second respondent.

However, the court found that the complaint of sexual harassment that related to the use of inappropriate language by the second respondent was substantiated. The court accepted the applicant's evidence that the second respondent used inappropriate language towards her on a number of occasions. The court found that this conduct constituted sexual harassment under the relevant legislation.

The court found that the balance of the complaints made against the second respondent were not substantiated. The court accepted the evidence of the second respondent that he did not engage in any other conduct that amounted to sexual harassment or victimisation.

The court ordered that the complaints of victimisation and sex discrimination made against the first respondent were dismissed. The court also ordered that the part of the complaint of sexual harassment that related to the use of inappropriate language by the second respondent was substantiated. The court ordered the second respondent to apologise to the applicant for his conduct and to pay her compensation for the harm caused by his conduct. The court did not order any other remedies.