Gauci v Kennedy

The decision in Gauci v Kennedy arose from a dispute between Peter Gauci and Michelle Kennedy, both of whom were associated with Griffith University. Gauci alleged that Kennedy sexually harassed him, and Kennedy in turn alleged that Gauci sexually harassed her. Gauci further alleged that Griffith University, his employer, failed to properly handle the complaints of sexual harassment and discriminated against him by not recognising his complaint as valid. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were whether Griffith University's handling of the sexual harassment complaints amounted to discrimination against Gauci under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), and if Griffith University could be held vicariously liable for Kennedy's alleged harassment of Gauci. Additionally, the court had to determine whether Griffith University failed in its duty to properly train Gauci in dealing with complaints of sexual harassment.

The court found that Griffith University's handling of the sexual harassment complaints did not constitute discrimination against Gauci under the Sex Discrimination Act. The court reasoned that the university's actions were not motivated by any discriminatory intent or purpose. Furthermore, the court held that Griffith University could not be held vicariously liable for Kennedy's alleged harassment as there was no evidence of the university endorsing or being complicit in the alleged harassment. Lastly, the court found no evidence that Griffith University failed in its duty to train Gauci in handling complaints of sexual harassment.

Ultimately, the court dismissed Gauci's application for leave to appeal against the decision of Jarrett FM. The court's decision was based on the finding that there was no arguable error in the original decision that would warrant an appeal.