Financial services company IOOF is facing simultaneous adverse action claims, one from a former senior manager who alleges it sacked her because she was suffering from workplace stress and another from a manager claiming sexual harassment and gender discrimination.
In a case likely to be closely watched by employers considering mandatory coronavirus vaccinations, the FWC will probe whether Ozcare unfairly sacked a long serving care assistant who refused a compulsory flu shot on allergy grounds, while the Commission has also weighed-in on the contentious issue of compulsory jabs for Santas.
Amazon is facing claims it discriminated against a warehouse worker by withdrawing an offer of permanent employment on the basis of her pregnancy, in a Federal Court case seeking penalties and damages for loss, hurt and humiliation.
A Deloitte auditor has told a court that the company did not reveal an alleged policy requiring partners to retire after turning 62 when it in 2014 "induced" him to leave a secure position at the age of 58.
A tribunal has upheld the revocation of a high school teacher's working with children authorisation after finding that while accusations and behaviours consistent with grooming had not been conclusively established, he continued to put himself in compromising situations.
In a decision upholding a finding that Sydney Water and a consultancy discriminated against a worker by displaying her photo on a poster titled "Feel great - lubricate!", a tribunal has confirmed even inadvertent double entendres can constitute s-xual harassment.
A court has rejected a worker's claim that her employer discriminated against her because of her pregnancy, finding no evidence that her colleagues had any knowledge of it before she initially lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Commission.
A third-party courier driver who s-xually harassed a Sanity manager when he slapped her on the bottom, repeatedly called her the "lewd" name "Juicy Lucy" and asked many times about her relationship status has been ordered to pay aggravated damages, largely for retaliating by serving her with a defamation letter in response to her internal complaint.
