Sexual Complaint Procedures !

Alarm is being expressed at the way complaints of sexual harassment in the workplace are leading to defamation actions in the courts that involve settlements of millions of dollars and where the actual people involved become mere bit players when the action involves media companies.

Two cases that involve this phenomenon accuse actor Geoffrey Rush and politician Luke Foley and in both cases the women involved sought to have their complaint settled without publicity. On the one hand we have complaints that many women who report sexual harassment see little change and the harasser unpunished, and in others they find themselves and their life story emblazoned on national newspaper headlines.

The problem is that sex sells newspapers, and when a public figure is involved a lurid sex story will be lapped up by the public.   The usual defence is a claim of innocence by the accused and consequently the focus of the action takes place in the courts where the newspaper involved needs to justify what it has published.   It becomes a battle of high priced lawyers to extract a notion of guilt or innocence from the evidence available.

An employment lawyer who is a research fellow of the University of Sydney suggests that victims of sexual harassment should be allowed to keep their details suppressed and to have a closed hearing.  She said there should also be penalties against revealing the confidential details of a victim.

That introduces what many would consider a " Star Chamber " court system where the details of actions are kept from the public.  We pride our justice system on its openness and contrast it with the state control in many oppressive countries where judges instantly obey the wishes of the government. Here a free and fair judiciary conduct cases in full public view and their findings are subjected to numerous courts of review.

Perhaps sexual harassment cases need to be treated in a similar manner to divorces in the Family Court.   Enough discretion in the judges hand so that names of those appearing can be suppressed but case details appear in court releases.   That would prevent powerful men from using defamation laws to suppress women's complaints by using the threat of wide publicity to damage their public image.

It is quite clear that sexual harassment has long reared its ugly head in most situations where men and women earn their living together and more often where women are subservient to a man in a higher control function.   The standards that apply are changing and companies are now finding that ignoring such situations is no longer a viable option.   It is the shame that results from publicity about lack of action that is now bringing rebuke from shareholders onto board members and high management.

But it is also a fact that a spurious complaint of sexual harassment can be used in sheer spite and can destroy another persons reputation and job prospects.  Placing sexual harassment cases in a totally closed court with a ban of publication details would open the doors to a new weapon in the hands of vindictive women denied a promotion or with displeasure for any number of minor reasons.

As with all matters before a court, evidence of claim is essential.