Resources: Blog

“All reasonable steps” and vicarious liability

Blog
|

You're a liability

Federal and State anti-discrimination legislation makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate against or harass a person in their employment. The legislation also places liability on employers for the discriminatory conduct of their employees.

Federal and State anti-discrimination legislation makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate against or harass a person in their employment. The legislation also places liability on employers for the discriminatory conduct of their employees.

This means that if an employee is found to have acted in breach of anti-discrimination legislation, their employer may also be found to be in breach as a result of the employee’s actions.

An employer will not be vicariously liable for the conduct of its employees if the employer took all reasonable steps to prevent employees from unlawfully discriminating against or harassing others. The onus rests with the employer to prove that it is not vicariously liable for the unlawful conduct of its employees by demonstrating the steps that it took to prevent the conduct.

The recent decision of Von Schoeler v Allen Taylor and Company Ltd trading as Boral Timber (No 2) [2020] FCAFC 13 considered whether an employer had taken “all reasonable steps” to prevent employees from sexually harassing another employee, examining in particular its workplace policies and the training provided to employees.

The female employee, the complainant in this case, was employed as a timber grader for the employer. She made a number of allegations of discrimination in breach of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (SD Act). The allegations included that she was sexually harassed by another employee, was discriminated against on the basis of her sex by other employees and was victimised by other employees because she made a sexual harassment complaint. The employee also alleged that the employer was vicariously liable for the discriminatory and harassing conduct of its employees.

At first instance, a single judge of the Federal Circuit Court found that the employee had been sexually harassed by another employee but was not satisfied that other employees had discriminated against the employee on the basis of her sex or had engaged in victimisation of the employee. Moreover, the judge found that the employer was not vicariously liable for the sexual harassment committed by the other employee.

The employee appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia against the finding that the employer was not vicariously liable for the conduct of its employees.

Before the Full Court, the employer submitted that it had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the employee from engaging in sexual harassment. As evidence of the reasonable steps it took, it relied upon its “Working with Respect” policy and the associated training on the policy that had been carried out in the days before the alleged sexual harassment.

The Full Court held that the vicarious liability provision of the SD Act required employers to demonstrate that it took all reasonable steps to prevent employees from engaging in unlawful discrimination or sexual harassment and that these steps were communicated to employees and reinforced.

The Full Court noted that employers commonly rely upon policies and training provided in the workplace to demonstrate that they are not vicariously liable for the conduct of their employees. However, in this instance, the evidence relied upon by the employer in respect of its policy and the training did not demonstrate that it took all reasonable steps. In particular, there was no evidence:

  • Of the content of the training undertaken, rather the employer relied upon the presentation slides from refresher training which only included the definition of sexual harassment;
  • That employees were instructed that disciplinary action would be taken if an employee was found to have engaged in sexual harassment; and
  • That employees were instructed during the training that sexual harassment was against the law, that the employer would take sexual harassment seriously and it could be held liable for breaches.

For the Full Court, the failure of the employer to train employees on the seriousness and the consequences of sexual harassment meant that it did not take all reasonable steps to prevent the employee from engaging in sexual harassment.

Accordingly, the employer was found to be vicariously liable for the conduct of the employee. The matter was remitted to the Federal Circuit Court to assess the amount of damages.

Lessons for employers

Employers are reminded of their obligations to prevent unlawful discrimination and harassment in the workplace. It will not be enough for employers to simply rely on having a policy in place, it is essential that the policy is communicated to employees and employees are regularly trained in its contents. As the Full Court noted in this decision:

The significance of effective policies and training includes that they deter unlawful discrimination and sexual harassment. They do so through education about the effects of such acts upon victims and about the consequences for the perpetrators and their employers.

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Similar articles

Court finds rescinded job offer was not age discrimination

The rooster and the sunrise

Discrimination in the workplace is unlawful under a number of Australian laws, including state and federal anti-discrimination legislation (such as the Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth)) as well as the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act).

Read more...

Sexual harassment and work health and safety

New guidance material released by Safe Work Australia

Australia has long had in place state and federal anti-discrimination legislation which recognises sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination and makes sexual harassment in the workplace unlawful.

Read more...

Workplace Relations Review

Cases and Legislation November 2020

The Federal Circuit Court of Australia has rejected an employee’s claim that she was discriminated against because of her pregnancy and potential pregnancy.

Read more...

Court fines PCBU $60,000 for failing to re-assess the risks associated with changing site conditions

Set and forget

Persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs) have a positive obligation to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers and others.

Read more...

Employee fails in bid to have safety-related dismissal found to be unfair

Garbage in, garbage out

A dismissed employee can lodge an unfair dismissal claim alleging that their dismissal was “harsh, unjust or unreasonable”. Employees will often claim that the dismissal was all three: harsh, unjust and unreasonable.

Read more...

Fair Work Commission finds employer’s failure to comply with its consultation obligations rendered an employee’s dismissal to be unfair

Pick up the phone

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented effect on Australian businesses. Employers have had to, with little notice, adapt to these changing circumstances to try and minimise the adverse impact of lockdowns on the business and its employees.

Read more...

Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.