$255,750 and Counting: The Rising Cost of Workplace Sexual Harassment

Content warning: This article discusses serious workplace sexual harassment, sexual assault, threats of violence, physical assault, and victimisation. Some readers may find the content distressing.

Workplace sexual harassment claims are becoming more costly, more visible and more difficult for employers to ignore. In Pariyar v Basnet as Trustee for the Rojal and Reshma Family Trust &Ors (No. 2) [2026] QIRC 259, the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC ) awarded $255,750 in damages arising from a sustained pattern of sexual harassment, discrimination and victimisation.

This decision adds to a growing line of cases in which courts and tribunals have shown a willingness to impose substantial compensation for serious workplace misconduct. Beyond its troubling facts, the case offers valuable lessons for employers about their positive duty to create safe, respectful workplaces and the potentially significant consequences of failing to do so.

Mrs Sunita Pariyar was employed at a Brisbane restaurant called "Mountain Bliss", owned and managed by Mr Rojal Basnet through the Rojal and Reshma Family Trust. Between mid-February and early April 2022, Mr Basnet engaged in seven escalating incidents of sexual harassment and sex discrimination in contravention of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) (Act).

The conduct began with Mr Basnet telling Mrs Pariyar he would leave his wife for her and proposing they run the restaurant together. Over subsequent weeks, Mr Basnet disparaged Mrs Pariyar’s husband based on his appearance and lower Nepalese caste, urged her to leave her husband, told her she was "beautiful" and touched her hair. On more than one occasion Mr Basnet cornered Mrs Pariyar at work where he would forcefully grab her breasts and bottom, threatening to "ruin her life" if she told anyone.

On about 12 March 2022, while driving Mrs Pariyar home, Mr Basnet forcefully kissed her, grabbed her breasts, moved his hand towards her vagina, and locked the car doors until she screamed. Then on 28 March 2022, after Mrs Pariyar had blocked his number, Mr Basnet arrived uninvited at her home at 3:00am, left and subsequently returned later that morning at around 7:20am appearing intoxicated. On this occasion, Mr Basnet assaulted Mrs Pariyar’s husband, threatened to kill him and "take" Mrs Pariyar, striking her in the face. Mr Basnet later pleaded guilty to common assault arising from this incident.

The most serious incident occurred on 3–4 April 2022. Under the pretext of wanting to apologise and make arrangements to pay Mrs Pariyar of her outstanding wages, Mr Basnet convinced Mrs Pariyar to meet him. He then asked her to travel to the Gold Coast to collect work uniforms. He confiscated her phone, pressured her to drink heavily despite her being unaccustomed to alcohol, then took her to a hotel room where, ignoring her protests and physical resistance, he raped her after she had been sick and laid down to rest. He attempted intercourse two further times overnight, threatening to harm her family if she told anyone.

These matters formed the basis of Mrs Pariyar’s sexual harassment and sex discrimination complaint in the Queensland Human Rights Commission (QHRC).

On 16 February 2024, after she had filed a complaint with the QHRC, Mr Basnet entered her home without permission while Mrs Pariyar’s family slept, confronted her about the complaint, pushed her and struck her face. He subsequently pleaded guilty to unlawful entry and common assault from this incident. In light of these matters, Mrs Pariyar also alleged victimisation.

The complaint was ultimately referred from the QHRC to the QIRC.

In the QIRC proceedings, Mr Basnet denied all allegations, asserting a consensual secret romantic relationship, but chose not to give sworn evidence. The QIRC rejected Mr Basnet's assertions and found Mrs Pariyar's evidence clear, plausible, largely unchallenged and convincing, and that all seven incidents alleged in Mrs Pariyar’s complaint constituted sexual harassment and sex discrimination contrary to s 118 of the Act. It also found that victimisation under s 129 was established and that each instance of sexual harassment constituted direct sex discrimination under s 9(a).

Mrs Pariyar sought an order in the sum of $300,750. The QIRC ordered Mr Basnet (both personally and as trustee) to pay the following compensation to Mrs Pariyar:

• General damages for sexual harassment and sex discrimination: $170,000
• General damages for economic loss (past medical expenses): $750
• General damages for victimisation: $50,000
• Aggravated damages: $35,000
• Total: $255,750

This represents a significant amount for a claim of sexual harassment which reflects the severity of the conduct engaged in. Some other significant outcomes in relation to sexual harassment complaints include:

• Magar v Khan [2025] FCA 874, where the Federal Court ordered that the Respondent pay $305,000 to the complainant; and
• Taylor v August and Pemberton Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1313, where the Federal Court ordered that the Respondents pay $235,719.03 to the complainant.

Under both federal and state legislation employers have a positive duty to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate, as far as possible, discrimination or conduct that is discriminatory, any form of harassment, unlawful conduct or victimisation. The positive duty aims to create systematic change by preventing unlawful conduct from happening, rather than just reacting to the conduct after it has occurred.

The Seven Standards produced by the Australian Human Rights Commission that all employers should be actively considering and monitoring in their workplaces include:

• Leadership: Responsibility of leaders to prevent and deal with unlawful conduct.
• Culture: Employers to foster a culture that is safe, respectful and inclusive that values diversity and gender equality.
• Knowledge: Support workers to engage in safe, respectful and inclusive behaviour through education.
• Risk management: Recognising that unlawful conduct is an equality risk and a health and safety risk.
• Support: Providing appropriate support to all workers.
• Reporting and response: Ensure appropriate options for reporting and response.
• Monitoring, evaluation and transparency: Collect appropriate data to understand the nature and extent of relevant unlawful conduct concerning their workforce.

Queensland employers also have a duty under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable the health and safety of workers while they are at work in the business or undertaking. This obligation is mirrored in the work health and safety legislation across every state and territory in Australia.

There are numerous steps employers can take to both adhere to their required responsibilities and minimise the risk of sexual harassment or sex discrimination occurring in their workplace (consequently minimising their exposure to the risk of claims) including:

• Ensuring there is a clear pathway for staff to report any concerns or incidents. This includes ensuring management is educated and equipped to deal with these kinds of matters.
• Creating an in-depth, practical and user-friendly sexual harassment policy and ensuring that staff are aware of and understand their obligations under it.
• Conducting a risk assessment in relation to sexual harassment and sex-discrimination risks in the workplace as well as a risk management plan.
• Providing adequate training for staff to educate on what constitutes sexual harassment and sex-discrimination. Many workers don’t fully understand the layers to sexual harassment, including that conduct may amount to sexual harassment where a reasonable person would have anticipated the possibility that the person harassed would be offended, humiliated, or intimidated. This means that sexual harassment can occur even where there is no intention to upset or offend the other person.

Given the potentially significant implications for employers who get this wrong, the Pariyar decision provides a timely reminder for employers to check that they are meeting their obligations and proactively protecting their employees from exposure to such conduct.

--

If this article raises concerns for you or someone you know, support is available through 1800RESPECT (1800respect.org.au), Lifeline (lifeline.org.au), Beyond Blue (beyondblue.org.au) and Medicare Mental Health (medicarementalhealth.gov.au).

This article was co-authored by Lauren Miller, Paralegal, in our Brisbane office.

The views expressed in this article are general in nature only and do not constitute legal advice. Please contact us if you require specific advice tailored to the needs of your organisation.

Image by Antonius Ferret on Pexels