In a landmark ruling that has sent shockwaves through Australia’s employment landscape, the Federal Court has awarded a record $305,000 in damages to a young Nepalese woman who experienced sustained sexual harassment while working part-time at a Mad Mex outlet in Sydney.
The decision — in Shrestha v Han (No 2) [2024] FCA 660 — marks a turning point in how our legal system is recognising and responding to workplace harm.
But more importantly, it shines a stark light on what too many people already know from lived experience: that sexual harassment in the workplace is not rare, not trivial, and not without serious cost.
In this blog, we unpack what happened, why the case matters, and what every Australian employer should take from this powerful moment of accountability.
🧕🏽 Who Was Involved: A Vulnerable Worker, A Position of Power
The applicant — a young Nepalese woman on an international student visa — worked part-time at a Mad Mex outlet in Sydney. Like many migrant workers in Australia, she juggled work and study, relying on casual income to survive in a country far from home.
The respondent? A store director — someone in a direct position of power, with hiring, firing and rostering authority.
Over a period of time, this employer subjected her to repeated, escalating sexual harassment.
She was:
- Subjected to inappropriate comments and behaviour
- Left to navigate fear, distress, and isolation
- Eventually forced to stop working and studying due to the psychological toll
When she reported the harassment to HR, the response wasn’t protection — it was retaliation. The employer threatened her with defamation, effectively weaponising power to silence her further.
“She was afraid to speak, afraid to work, and left with no income. But she found her voice — and the court listened.”
— Redfern Legal Centre
⚖️ The Court’s Response: A Historic Judgment
Justice Bromwich of the Federal Court handed down the ruling in mid-2024, awarding a total of $305,000 — the highest ever amount of compensation granted in a sexual harassment case under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth).
Breakdown of damages:
- $160,000 for general damages due to sexual harassment
- $10,000 for victimisation (due to threats of defamation)
- $5,000 in aggravated damages for the respondent’s conduct during litigation
- $130,000 for economic loss (past and future lost earnings)
This was not just a financial award — it was a statement.
Justice Bromwich acknowledged the:
- Serious and sustained nature of the harassment
- Impact on the applicant’s mental health and future prospects
- Additional harm caused by threats and intimidation
- Need to send a clear signal to employers and the public
“This case was not just about compensation. It was about consequences.”
— Grata Fund
💥 Why This Case Is So Significant
1. It Sets a New Legal Precedent
Never before has an Australian court awarded this level of compensation for sexual harassment in the workplace. It raises the bar for what damages might look like — particularly when there is:
- A power imbalance
- Threats of retaliation
- Long-term psychological and economic harm
Future claimants and courts will likely reference this decision. It’s a sign that the legal system is evolving — and recognising the real, lasting cost of harm.
2. It Highlights the Risks of Employer Inaction
The employer’s response — threatening defamation instead of protecting the worker — was not just ethically bankrupt. It was legally dangerous.
It compounded the harm, attracted aggravated damages, and became a powerful example of what not to do when a complaint arises.
“Threatening legal action against someone for reporting abuse? That’s not just morally indefensible — it’s a recipe for reputational and legal ruin.”
3. It Centres Vulnerable Workers
This applicant wasn’t a CEO. She wasn’t a full-time employee. She wasn’t unionised or securely employed.
She was:
- A young woman of colour
- On a student visa
- In casual work
- Without safety nets
And that’s exactly why this case matters so much.
Too often, vulnerable workers suffer in silence — fearing visa cancellation, loss of income, or retaliation if they report abuse. This case shows that justice is possible, even from a precarious position.
But it shouldn’t take federal litigation to get there.
4. It Signals That Culture Must Be Backed by Action
Many workplaces display values of “respect” and “inclusion” — but values don’t mean much if they don’t hold up under pressure.
This case shows that:
- Having a HR department isn’t enough
- Policies are useless if not followed
- Culture must include consequences — not just posters
🚩 What Went Wrong: Mistakes to Avoid
Every workplace should use this case as a moment of reflection. Here are the biggest red flags:
❌ Lack of Protective Response
When the woman reported harassment, she wasn’t offered protection. She was threatened. That response failed both legally and ethically.
🚨 Employers must act protectively — not defensively — when a complaint is raised.
❌ No Safe Pathway for Reporting
It’s unclear if this woman had a safe, confidential way to raise concerns before approaching HR. In many small businesses, complaints go directly to the perpetrator — especially when there’s no independence or oversight.
🚨 Workplaces must offer alternate reporting channels — especially where a power imbalance exists.
❌ Culture of Fear and Isolation
The applicant said she felt unable to keep working or studying after the harassment. This reflects a broader failure of psychological safety.
🚨 If people have to leave work to be safe, your culture isn’t working.
❌ Failure to Recognise Long-Term Harm
The $130,000 in economic loss wasn’t plucked from thin air. The court recognised the ongoing impact on the woman’s ability to earn, study, and recover.
🚨 Harassment doesn’t end when the behaviour stops — its ripple effects can last years.
🧰 Lessons for Workplaces: What You Must Do Now
Let’s turn this from a cautionary tale into a playbook for action.
✔ 1. Review Your Harassment Policies
- Are they compliant with Respect@Work reforms?
- Do they include protections from victimisation?
- Do they outline clear consequences?
- Are they translated, accessible, and regularly reviewed?
✔ 2. Train All Staff — Especially Managers
Focus on:
- What sexual harassment is (and isn’t)
- How to respond to disclosures
- How to avoid victim-blaming
- Where to refer someone for support
Training should be:
- Regular (at least annually)
- Culturally competent
- Scenario-based and interactive
✔ 3. Offer Multiple Reporting Pathways
Including:
- Independent HR contacts
- Anonymous reporting tools
- External whistleblower services
- Escalation paths that bypass the line manager
✔ 4. Actively Monitor Workplace Culture
- Are there teams or locations with high turnover?
- Are certain groups under-represented in complaints (hint: that’s often a red flag)?
- Do casual or migrant workers know their rights?
- Are complaints followed through — with visible accountability?
✔ 5. Resource Support for Survivors
This means:
- Trauma-informed counselling
- Paid leave for recovery
- Protection from retaliation (e.g. reassigning the alleged harasser)
- Support through the legal process, if needed
✔ 6. Set the Tone From the Top
Leaders must:
- Role-model respectful conduct
- Refuse to downplay complaints
- Take swift, visible action when harm occurs
- Speak openly about the importance of safety
“Culture isn’t built in workshops. It’s built in moments of truth — when someone’s courage meets your response.”
👀 What Comes Next?
This case is likely to be the first of many. As Respect@Work enforcement powers expand and workers become more aware of their rights, we expect to see:
- More legal action
- Higher damages
- Greater scrutiny of employer responses
- More reputational consequences for brands that fail to act
Already, plaintiff firms and funders are stepping up — offering support to workers who might previously have stayed silent.
🗣 Final Word: Courage, Consequences, and Culture
This case isn’t just about legal precedent. It’s about power.
It’s about a young woman — far from home, without income, without protection — who spoke up against abuse.
It’s about a workplace that failed to respond with care — and paid the price.
And it’s about the kind of culture we all have a role in shaping.
At Capyble, we believe that workplaces can be part of the solution — but only if they are willing to reflect, act, and evolve.
If this case makes you uncomfortable — good. Let that discomfort fuel change.
Because no one should have to go to court to be treated with dignity at work.
