Ilac Anti-Discrimination Law Essay

1696 Words May 25th, 2013 7 Pages
Anti-discrimination Law
Question 1: [Sexsual harassment]
Sue works for a company called X-Pest Pty Ltd. One day Sue walked into the lunchroom of the business. In the lunchroom was a number of male and female staff that were looking at the latest Queensland Netball Team calendar called “Chicks of Netball”. The players in the calendar were semi-naked. As Sue walked into the room, Bruce, who knew Sue was very shy around men, was pinning up Miss October on the staffroom fridge. As Sue came over Bruce looked her up and down, and then looked at the calendar, and, confident he could humiliate Sue, said in a loud voice so that everyone could hear, “Too bad we don’t have any real chicks working here like the ones in the calendar. All we
…show more content…
In this case, Peter breached s129&s130, he is the boss of the company, the company had the vicarious liability of this case. Hence, X-Pest Pty Ltd breached s133 of QADA. In addition, s133 (2) also points out that on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent took reasonable steps to prevent worker or agent contravening the Act. In this case, Peter, as the boss of this company he did not take any reasonable steps to prevent workers from contravening the Act. Hence, the company breached s133(2) of QADA. * Font v. Paspaley Pearls[2002], D v. Berkeley Challenge Pty Ltd[2001]. Through the two cases, Peter and his company breached victimization of QADA.
Conclusion:
On the balance of profitability, the courts will decide that both Peter and X-Pest will be joint and severally liable for the victimization suffered by Sue.

Question 3 [Vilification诽谤]
Continued from Q2.
The next day Sue decided to ring up one of the talk back radio stations that were having a discussion on harassment in the workplace. The announcer who spoke to Sue live on air was called, Albert Jonson. The radio station was called 2EEE and was owned by the company Singlet Pty Ltd.
Albert thought it was funny that Sue

Related Documents