Richardson v Oracle Corporation Australia Pty Ltd

In Richardson v Oracle Corporation Australia Pty Ltd, Ms Richardson, the appellant, appealed against the decision of Buchanan J of the Federal Court of Australia, who had dismissed her claims against Oracle Corporation Australia Pty Ltd, the first respondent, and Mr Tucker, the second respondent. Ms Richardson's claims were founded on allegations of sexual harassment by Mr Tucker, a sales representative, during their work together on a bid team to secure a commitment from ANZ Bank for the Secure Access project. The primary judge largely accepted Ms Richardson's account of the sexual harassment, finding that Mr Tucker's conduct amounted to a systematic course of sexual harassment.

The appeal raised several legal issues, including the causation of harm, the sufficiency of the causal link between the sexual harassment and the effects of the workplace investigation, the psychological injury suffered as a result of the complaint to the AHRC and subsequent litigation, and whether the "false denials" of the sexual harasser provided a causal link between the unlawful conduct and the harm suffered. The court also considered whether Ms Richardson left her employment voluntarily, the applicability of the Medlin analysis to her decision to leave employment, and whether the workplace policy imposed on complainants amounted to indirect discrimination. Additionally, the appeal addressed the assessment of damages under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), including the nature of damages for sexual discrimination and harassment, the assessment of general damages, and the award of damages for a diminished sexual relationship.

The court found that the causal nexus between the sexual harassment and the effects of the workplace investigation was not made out, as there was insufficient evidence to establish a direct link. However, the court held that the causal nexus between the sexual harassment and the appellant's decision to leave employment was made out, applying the Medlin analysis. The court also determined that the workplace policy did not amount to indirect discrimination. Regarding damages, the court held that the trial judge had erred in assessing statutory damages under s 46PO(4)(d) of the AHRC Act by applying tortious principles, and that the award of damages for the diminished sexual relationship was inadequate. The court found no error in the trial judge's assessment of general damages by reference to the nature of the sexual harassment. The court further determined that the trial judge had not erred in the method for calculating economic damages, and the challenge to the calculation was not made out. The appeal outcome has renewed the relevance of the offer of settlement in relation to costs.

The appeal was allowed, and the orders set aside the original judgment and substituted a new judgment for the appellant against the first respondent in the sum of $130,000, with the first respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal. The parties were directed to file and serve submissions on the issue of the costs of the trial within 21 days.