Australian Human Rights Commission Case Study 2022

Running Head: CASE STUDY
CASE STUDY
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author’s Note

CASE STUDY1
Issue:
The issue in the case is whether VBH is liable for workplace harassment.
Rules:
Workplace harassment is humiliating or threatening other person or persons at work. The
Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) recognizes the equal rights of all the workers to
work in a free environment. The free environment means the the work environment should be
free from all bullying and harassment. Section 789 FD of the Fair Work Amendment Act 2013
(Cth) explains bullying as the unreasonable behavior to continuously involve the other person
endangering his or her health and safety. Any kind of yelling, screaming, psychological
harassment, offensive language, intimidation, suppression of ideas and so on involve the act of
bullying.
Harassment is explained in a number of legislations as explained under following heads:
 Sex Discrimination Act 1984, section 28 A explains sexual harassment as the
unwelcomes behavior of one person towards another in a workplace as an exchange or
favors, resulting in offending, humiliating or intimidating the victim. Such acts can be
subtle rather than being expressive and explicit in nature1.
 Racial Discrimination Act 1975 section 18 C explains that no person is allowed to behave
in an offensive manner based on racial discrimination. Offensive manner of behavior
includes offense, insult, humiliation, discrimination and intimidation based on race, caste,
color, creed or ethnic origin.
1 STU vs. JKL (Qld) Pty Ltd [2016] QCAT 505

CASE STUDY2
 Disability Discrimination Act 1992 section 25 states that no employee should be
discriminated on the basis of disability.
 Age Discrimination Act 2004 prohibits any person to discriminate another person on the
basis of age and factors of age during the course of employment, while seeking
employment and during of course of recruitment as well. In a recent case law2 it has been
held that the culture fir of the new generation with aspect that of age is nothing but
gender biasness. However, the concept of culture fit in itself is not discriminatory but the
assumptions made to ensure the person is culturally fit should not be discriminatory
based on age, caste, culture, creed, sex, race, disability and so on. However, there are
certain reasonable restrictions or exceptions like superannuation, insurance and credit,
taxation, migration and citizenship, pensions and health allowances, some health
programs, youth wages or industrial agreements and award compliance and most
importantly positive discrimination.
In a case tried in Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Decision in20173, it was held
by the court that the prank involving the offensive language or things shall be amounting to
sexual harassment. In case the cleaner at school was pranked with a condom filled with fluid, the
prank was held offensive and sexually harassing for the cleaner. Any gesture with middle finger,
pretending to take photographs and videos of the people without their permission shall amount to
harassment and hence, the suit can be instituted against them.
In Federal Court’s Landmark Judgment4, it was held that any offensive act amount to
disrespect and humiliation towards the other person shall amount to sexual harassment. Further
2 McEvoy vs. Acorn Stairlifts Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATAD 273
3 Green vs. The State of Queensland [2017] QCAT 008