20/11/2025
The recent unfair dismissal case of Courtney Sewell v dnata Airport Services Pty Limited [2025] FWC 2823 found that an employee was forced to resign as a result of the way in which the outcome of an investigation into her complaint of sexual harassment was handled by her employer, dnata Airport Services Pty Limited (DAS).
As a result, the employee was awarded $36,468.39 in compensation – an important reminder that mishandled workplace investigations can result in costly constructive dismissal claims.
Background
The Ms Sewell claimed she was forced to resign because of how the employer handled the outcome of an investigation into an allegation she had made of sexual harassment by a male coworker.
In this matter:
- Ms Sewell made an allegation of sexual harassment against a male coworker;
- The employer promptly investigated and found that the allegation was “unable to be substantiated”;
- On 20 March 2025, Ms Sewell was verbally informed of the outcome of the investigation and the following day the male coworker was informed in writing of the outcome;
- On 10 April 2025, Ms Sewell was informed the male coworker would be returning, the next day, as normal. Ms Sewell requested to be rostered on different days or times – but this requested was refused – DAS eventually offered Ms Sewell an option to transfer to a different role, but this would have required significant compromise by Ms Sewell; and
- On 15 April 2025 and again on 22 April 2025 Ms Sewell requested a copy of the investigation summary and outcome – which was provided by DAS on 28 April 2025 – the Commission considered that this communication did not clearly identify whether the allegations had been substantiated, partially substantiated or not substantiated.
Findings
Deputy President Beaumont ultimately found this to be a case of constructive dismissal – that is, the actions of DAS forced Ms Sewell to resign.
Of particular note for employers, DP Beaumont found there were limitations in the investigation process including:
- failure to interview any witnesses other than Ms Sewell and the male coworker, with no effort made to contact individuals who may have received contemporaneous reports from Ms Sewell; and
- inadequate communication of the outcome – noting the significant delay in providing written findings, which was only provided after numerous request and which was inconsistent with the verbally communicated outcome; and
DP Beaumont also emphasised that it remains open to employers to make a finding even where the evidence of the complainant and respondent differs.
Ultimately, in these circumstances, DP Beaumont found the conduct of DAS “sufficiently egregious to render the Applicant’s resignation as having been forced” – noting there was inequal treatment between Ms Sewell and the male coworker in the investigation process, and it was unreasonable to place the burden of compromise on the shoulders of Ms Sewell.
Lessons for employers
This case is a timely reminder that employers must ensure their investigation process from commencement, to conclusion including communication with respondents and applicants is clear, fair and consistent.
Reach out to our expert employment law team if you have any questions about your obligations during or after an investigation or if you would like us to conduct a workplace investigation.