Business Toolbox

A recent Fair Work Commission (FWC) ruling is a sharp reminder that mishandling sexual harassment complaints can expose employers to significant unfair dismissal risks – even when an employee resigns.  

On September 22, 2025, the FWC has handed down a decision in an unfair dismissal claim (Courtney Sewell v dnata Airport Services Pty Limited [2025] FWC 2823) and pay $36,468 in compensation, after an employer failed to properly investigate sexual harassment allegations which led to their employee resigning and citing constructive dismissal.  

Our employee relations experts examine the case and what it means for businesses. 

Case facts

On January 16, 2023 the applicant, Courtney Sewell, started part-time employment with the respondent, dnata Airport Services Pty Limited, as a Passenger Services Delivery Agent at Perth Airport.

On March 9, 2025 the applicant alleged she was subjected to sexual harassment from a male colleague, specifically, inappropriate comments about her physical appearance and the clothing she should wear to a social function they were both attending.

The conduct was of a sexual nature, unwelcome and a reasonable person would have been offended. The applicant spoke with other colleagues about the incident, to which they encouraged her to ‘speak up’ and report it to her manager, which she did later the same day.

The manager requested the applicant provide a summary of the incident in writing, which she did via email but did not receive a response.

On March 14, the applicant was requested to attend a meeting to recount the interaction from March 9. The respondent had also informed the applicant of further allegations against the male colleague from other employees to which it was determined they would investigate further.

On March 20, whilst on shift, the applicant was verbally informed the investigation had closed with no consequences for the male employee as the allegations could not be substantiated. The male colleague, however, was informed of that in writing.

The applicant then requested for her shifts to be swapped so she wouldn’t be working with the male colleague, but her request was denied and was informed this would be seen as discrimination against the male colleague.

On April 14, the applicant was requested to attend a meeting with the respondent’s HR Director the following day. In the meeting, the applicant requested a written summary of the investigation and its outcome, however, did not hear back.

On April 22, the applicant emailed the respondent requesting an update on when she would receive the investigation summary and outcome. The respondent finally provided the applicant with the investigation summary and outcome in writing on April 28, which stated that only “some” of the allegations raised through the entire process against the male colleague were unable to be substantiated.  

The applicant concluded that she could not return to the workplace due to the respondent’s mishandling of her complaint, stating her welfare was not taken seriously which caused her to feel undervalued and abandoned. The applicant formally resigned on April 30. 

The decision

FWC Deputy President Abbey Beaumont found it was reasonable for the applicant to be disappointed with how the respondent handled her complaint, specifically highlighting how the applicant was initially informed of the outcome of the investigation verbally, whereas the male colleague received the outcome in writing.

Beaumont also said the respondent appeared to have no intention of adhering to the applicant’s request to be rostered on different shifts to the male colleague. 

In addition, it was determined unclear whether the allegations or part thereof had been substantiated. Beaumont cited the respondent’s improper handling of the sexual harassment complaint led to the applicant having to resign, therefore was found the applicant was unfairly dismissed and the dismissal was deemed unreasonable.

The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant $36,468 in compensation, equivalent to six months’ pay – the maximum entitlement.  

Key takeaways

Managing allegations of sexual harassment can be challenging due to the sensitive nature of the complaint.

In 2021, the Fair Work Act 2009 was expanded to introduce a positive duty for employers – meaning employers must implement all possible measures to mitigate sexual harassment in the workplace and create a safe, respectful working environment. This positive duty also includes the responsibility to handle any allegations of sexual harassment in a timely matter, maintain communication and confidentiality and ensure accurate records are documented.

If sexual harassment allegations are not taken seriously and the complainant is not offered additional support, this can lead to further risk for employers as evidenced in this case.  

This case also highlights the importance of being mindful of constructive dismissal. This is when an employee feels they have no choice but to resign from their employment due to an employer’s conduct.

Employees tend to resign in these scenarios because they no longer feel safe working for the employer and feel it would be better to remove themself from the work environment. Often, employers disregard the risk when employees resign because it is an employee-initiated termination rather than the employer making the decision to terminate.

However, even though the employer has not terminated, a forced resignation due to the lack of support provided to the employee can still result in an unfair dismissal if it is found that the employer’s conduct led to the employee having to resign, as clearly identified in this case.  

Due to the sensitivity of managing sexual harassment investigations and the risk of constructive dismissal, CCIWA strongly recommends that employers contact our Employee Relations Helpline on 08 9365 7660 or via [email protected] to seek further advice prior taking any action.