Federal Court awards more than $125,000 in workplace sexual harassment case
In Wood v Kendall [2026] FedCFamC2G 889, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia awarded more than $125,000 to a young worker after finding she had been sexually harassed in the workplace.
The decision is a significant reminder that sexual harassment claims can expose employers and business owners to substantial general damages, aggravated damages and lost income claims, particularly where there is a power imbalance and inadequate preventative measures in place.
Key Facts in Wood v Kendall
The applicant, aged 20 years, had disclosed to the employer that she had obsessive-compulsive disorder and suffered from severe anxiety. She had been placed on a two-week trial with the employer through a disability employment service at a Perth heating and air conditioning business. On day five of the placement, she was left working alone with the business owner.
During that shift, the owner, aged 41 years, asked the applicant intimate and sexual questions, including whether she had a boyfriend, what her sexual fantasies were, and whether they would have sex if they were dating. He also touched her by tucking her hair behind her ear and asked whether she would let him kiss her if they were dating.
The applicant became frightened and distressed. She later reported the incident to her psychologist and mother and did not return to the business. After an unsuccessful Australian Human Rights Commission conciliation, she commenced proceedings seeking declarations, damages and findings of employer liability under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth).
What the Court found
The Court considered whether the conduct met the definition of sexual harassment under section 28A of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). Judge Liveris referred to the three core elements of sexual harassment:
- conduct of a sexual nature,
- that is unwelcome,
- and which a reasonable person would anticipate might offend, humiliate or intimidate.
On the evidence, each element was established, with the Court describing the sexual nature of the conduct as “plain and obvious”.
The Court also found contraventions of section 28B and was satisfied the corporate employer was liable. In reaching that conclusion, Judge Liveris noted that Mr Kendall knew of Ms Wood’s personal circumstances and the nature of her referral for an employment trial and was satisfied that a reasonable person would have anticipated the possibility that she would be offended, humiliated or intimidated. Importantly, the judgment also referred to the statutory duty to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate unlawful sex discrimination and sexual harassment as far as possible under section 47C.
Damages awarded
In assessing compensation, the Court accepted that the harassment had a serious and continuing psychological impact.
The applicant gave evidence that she avoided looking for other employment for four months after the incident because “she was just too disturbed at the idea of working with a man and having this happen to her again”. She gave evidence that she continued to feel unsafe and on edge around men in workplace and everyday settings.
Judge Liveris held that general damages of $100,000 were appropriate to reflect the “pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life” the applicant had experienced over the course of 2.5 years after the sexual harassment had taken place. The Court also awarded $15,000 in aggravated damages and $10,238.43 for economic loss.
Why this decision matters for employers
This case highlights the legal and financial consequences of workplace sexual harassment, especially where the conduct is committed by an owner or senior decision-maker. It also underscores the importance of having effective policies, training, complaint pathways and active risk management processes in place. Employers should not assume that small business size reduces exposure. The positive duty in section 47C requires proactive and meaningful steps to prevent unlawful conduct before it occurs, and in this case the Court noted there was no evidence the employer had taken any steps to prevent the conduct, let alone all reasonable steps for the purposes of section 106(2).
Policies on paper are not enough if they are not implemented. Employers must take active, documented and proportionate steps to prevent harassment, train staff, provide clear reporting pathways and respond promptly if concerns are raised.
If your organisation needs advice on workplace sexual harassment prevention, positive duty compliance, or responding to complaints and litigation risk, our employment law team can help.
Aggie Vlahos, Partner
[email protected] | 0405 995 057