Sexual Harassment Peril !

The conclusion of a sexual harassment case against veteran actor Geoffrey Rush and a woman playing a supporting role will have newspaper editors and their financial backers having a long, hard look at what they will in future feature on their news pages.

In recent days the Federal Court upheld Mr Rush's defamation claim against the Daily Telegraph and awarded the Oscar winning actor $ 850,000 in compensation and aggravated damages.  What is yet to be decided is the amount that will be awarded for future lost earnings and there is the expectation that will run into millions of dollars.

That has sparked a national enquiry into sexual harassment in the workplace because this judgement will have a chilling effect on the " Me Too " movement.  Across the world, women who have been sexually harassed in their workplace have spoken out and in many cases their harasser has been driven from public office.  This is an offence that is rarely supported by cut and dried hard evidence and the public seems to accept guilt if a number of different women make precisely the same complaint.

There is no doubt that in the film industry there were many men with power who were absolute monsters in forcing women seeking star roles to offer sex on what was called " the casting couch ". Unfortunately, this coercion in more subtle form is often present across the entire work spectrum where seniority delivers the power to decide promotional advancement and the elevated salary levels that go with such elevation.  The workplace is far from a level playing field for most women.

In many cases a claim of sexual harassment was handled " in house " and settled with a small amount of money tied to a confidentiality clause.  In most cases it involves the complaining woman seeking other employment.  It is usually only when the matter at issue attracts media attention that it is treated seriously and this is where the " Me Too " movement has brought sexual harassment into the open.  Women who in the past simply suffered in silence are finding the courage to publicly name their harasser.

If the outcome of this case shuts down media reporting of sexual harassment claims the progress made in bringing it into the open will suffer a serious check.  The prospect of finding themselves in court and with the need to prove what they claim is correct would be a daunting task that many victims would reject.  In such cases, the onus of proof is always the responsibility of the claimant.

But it is equally clear that the wrongly accused suffer irreparable damage.  Career and job prospects go out the window under the miasma of guilt that such an accusation brings.  It is quite possible that sheer personal animosity may urge vindictive women to make such a claim when in reality their own incompetence held them back from a promotion they think they earned.   The power of such an accusation is awesome.

The safety of women in the workplace probably hinges on this national enquiry setting realistic goal posts on how sexual harassment cases should proceed - and how they will be reported in the media. Perhaps names need to be suppressed until a decision is reached but the relay of innuendo is so prevalent in this country that the people involved will quickly become common knowledge.

The Geoffrey Rush case is probably the ideal template of how a sexual harassment case should not be handled  !