A Perth airline worker who was forced to resign due to a botched sexual harassment investigation has won a $36,000 unfair dismissal payout. The Fair Work Commission found the investigation was riddled with delays and procedural flaws. It also observed that the airline told the victim that it couldn’t avoid rostering her on the same shifts with her perpetrator. She was told that she would need to change roles or get a job at another airline if she wanted to avoid him.
In this article, we’ll look at the events of this unfair dismissal case Courtney Sewell v dnata Airport Services Pty Limited [2025]. We’ll also look at another case of a senior executive who sexually harassed two female coworkers, but ended up with a $42,000 unfair dismissal payout.
Airline worker forced to resign due to botched sexual harassment investigation
Courtney Sewell started working as a part-time Passenger Services Delivery Agent with dnata Airport Services on 16 January 2023. Working at Perth Airport, she was responsible for checking-in and assisting passengers, boarding tasks and arrivals. In May 2024, she was appointed to a Relief Team Leader role.
The initial alleged sexual harassment incident occurred on 9 March 2025. Ms. Sewell reported that a male employee in her team made repeated “intrusive propositions” regarding the attire she should wear at an upcoming social gathering. She alleged that she told her to wear a “short mini skirt and a hijab.” The employee allegedly commented on Ms. Sewell’s physical appearance. He said that a mini skirt “would look really good” on her and repeatedly encouraged her to wear it.
Management took their time reporting sexual harassment
Ms. Sewell said that the conversation made her “extremely uncomfortable” and she reported it to her manager. She replied “expressing her apologies” and copied-in the Passenger Services Manager. The Fair Work Commission found that Ms. Sewell’s complaint was a reasonable report of sexual harassment. It deemed the conduct to be unwelcome and of a sexual nature that a reasonable person would have anticipated it would have offended Ms. Sewell.
Her complaint, however, was held up by the Passenger Services Manager, who only notified the Operations Manager, Ms. Aston, about the incident two days later. This was after Ms. Sewell complained that she had not heard back from dnata Airport Services and intended to take a week’s leave. Ms. Aston then offered Ms. Sewell access to the Employee Assistance Program and initiated the internal investigation with the People and Culture Business Partner. dnata Airport Services also accommodated Ms. Sewell’s request for personal leave and instructed the male employee not to attend work pending the investigation’s outcome.
Investigation delayed again, perpetrator found out who complained
dnata Airport Services conducted initial interviews as part of the investigation on 14 March 2025. The Fair Work Commission found that the process “began to go awry” on 21 March 2025. On that date, the outcome of the investigation was communicated to the male employee via a letter. This outlined that the allegations against him were “not able to be substantiated.” Ms. Sewell, however, had to wait until 10 April 2025 to be verbally informed that the investigation had ended with no consequences for the male employee.
She was told this was because “either side” of the story about the incident could not be substantiated. Despite having told the male employee that the claims against him were unsubstantiated, he was asked to remain on leave until 11 April 2025. Ms. Aston also advised Ms. Sewell that the male employee had worked out that she was the complainant. Ms. Sewell was told that he “was angry and showing aggressive behaviour” over the phone when informed of the investigation’s closure.
Told being rostered on different shifts would be discrimination
During a meeting on 10 April 2025, Ms. Sewell was verbally advised that the male employee would return to work the following day. She then asked to be rostered on different days or shift times from the male employee. This request was however denied by Ms. Aston, as she said it would constitute discrimination against the male employee. Evidence showed that to secure separation, Ms. Sewell was told that she would need to move to a different airline or an alternative role in load control or administration.
The Fair Work Commission noted that to conduct the meeting on 10 April 2025 without being prepared to address Ms. Sewell’s “palpable concern” about working with the male employee was “unreasonable.” The next day, Ms. Sewel took personal leave.
Forced to resign after losing faith in employer
Despite requesting a written outcome of the sexual harassment investigation on 15 April 2025 and following up a week later, dnata Airport Services took until 28 April 2025 to provide it to Ms. Sewell. The Fair Work Commission found that this was “unacceptable” conduct from the company. It said that it would plausibly give Ms. Sewell the impression that she wasn’t valued as an employee.
The written outcome further compounded the issue. It ambiguously stated that dnata Airport Services was unable to make a finding for some of the allegations. This conflicted with the previous verbal advice and led to Ms. Sewell losing trust in the process. Ms. Sewell stated that upon receiving the report, she felt that dnata Airport Services wasn’t “taking her welfare seriously.” She said that she felt “undervalued and abandoned” and realised she couldn’t return to the job. She therefore resigned on 30 April 2025.
Poor handling of sexual harassment complaint forced resignation
In her unfair dismissal claim, Ms. Sewell argued to the Fair Work Commission that dnata Airport Services’s conduct left her with no effective choice but to resign. She said that this was because of the sexual harassment investigation’s flaws as well as the significant delay and inconsistency in communication of the outcome. Ms. Sewell also cited the necessity to compromise her employment position (by moving roles or airlines) in order to avoid the male employee. All these factors combined, she argued, rendered the working relationship intolerable.
Meanwhile, dnata Airport Services contended that Ms. Sewell’s resignation was voluntary. It maintained that the investigation was conducted. The company also highlighted that Ms. Sewell was offered “multiple options” for workplace flexibility to mitigate the concerns of working with the male employee. dnata Airport Services argued that Ms. Sewell chose not to engage with any of these options. The company also pointed out that it provided her access to its Employee Assistance Program and regular welfare checks.
Forcing worker to compromise was unfair
Ms. Sewell’s unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in September 2025. It found that she had been constructively dismissed; that is, forced to resign due to the conduct of dnata Airport Services. The Commission held that it was “unreasonable” to place the burden of compromise on the shoulders of Ms. Sewel.
The requirement that she move position to ensure her safety, rather than moving the male employee who was the subject of the complaint, was deemed misplaced. dnata Airport Services failed to demonstrate with evidence that moving the male employee was impossible.
Serious flaws found with sexual harassment investigation
The Fair Work Commission also found that the investigation into the alleged sexual harassment was seriously flawed. dnata Airport Services had failed to interview two colleagues who Ms. Sewell had reported the incident to “quite soon after” it occurred.
The Commission also observed that the investigation team treated any discrepancy between Ms. Sewell’s and the male employee’s versions of events as grounds to reject the allegations. The Commission said that the procedural flaws “largely related” to the basis on which dnata Airport Services drew its conclusions about the alleged sexual harassment incident.
Made a mess of post-investigation updates
The Fair Work Commission found that dnata Airport Services failed to demonstrate that it treated Ms. Sewell and the male employee equally. This was exemplified by the policy to provide the male employee with a written result because he was suspended, but requiring Ms. Sewell to request an investigation report herself.
The Commission also learned during the unfair dismissal hearing that dnata Airport Services had received a second report about the male employee’s conduct. It was observed that the investigation report provided to Ms. Sewell might have conflated the results from the two investigations.
Huge unfair dismissal payout awarded
Ultimately, the Fair Work Commission ruled that Ms. Sewell had been unfairly dismissed by being forced to resign. It deemed that reinstating her to her former role would be inappropriate. Therefore, the Commission ordered dnata Airport Services to pay her $36,468.39 in compensation. This amount was equivalent to six months’ pay, which was the maximum compensation available in this case under the statutory cap.
Executive wins $40K unfair dismissal payout despite sexually harassing colleagues
Another recent story that involves sexual harassment and unfair dismissal comes to us from Ireland. This is an example of how justice can seemingly be perverted and why it’s so important for employers to conduct a proper investigation. In this case, which made headlines in August 2025, an unnamed senior executive at a financial services firm was dismissed for two incidents of sexual harassment involving two female colleagues..
The first incident took place in September 2022. A female colleague, referred to as Ms. B, left her personal phone at the office while she was away on holiday. This was to allow a colleague to access a banking app on the device for work purposes. While she was away, the unnamed executive took the phone and posted two sexually offensive messages on her social media account. He also sent a message to one of her friends that read, “Hi, how are you?”
Ms. B contacted the unnamed executive as she was worried her device had been hacked. He admitted posting the messages, claiming it was a “joke.” Ms. B complained to management, saying that she was “extremely annoyed.” However, she didn’t press the complaint any further as management decided to give her a dedicated work phone.
Sent ‘disgusting’ text from another woman’s phone
The second sexual harassment incident occurred on 30 January 2024. The unnamed executive accessed a colleague’s phone, known as Ms. A, from her desk. He then sent a “sexually explicit” WhatsApp message to her husband. Ms. A discovered the message as she was leaving the office and immediately complained to management. She said that she and her husband found the message “vulgar and disgusting.” As he had said with the first incident, the unnamed executive admitted to sending the message as a joke.
Around a week later, he was suspended with pay. During a meeting related to the suspension, Ms. B said that “I can’t believe this is happening again.” The company’s CEO later told Ireland’s Workplace Relations Commission that he had forgotten about the 2022 incident involving Ms. B’s phone.
Ms. B was then asked to document the prior event, which she did in a formal letter of complaint. The company then engaged an independent human resources consultancy to investigate the complaints. The investigator concluded that the manager’s behaviour constituted sexual harassment of “high severity.” He was later dismissed by the company.
Described sexual harassment incidents as ‘two stupid things’
The executive challenged his dismissal at Ireland’s Workplace Relations Commission, claiming the investigation was biased and that his sacking had been disproportionate. He acknowledged that he had done “two stupid things” in “the heat of the moment.” However, the executive argued that they didn’t warrant the description of sexual harassment.
He claimed that description was a “gross mischaracterisation” of what happened and that he was the “fall guy” for a workplace culture typified by sexual comments and innuendo. The executive contended that the inclusion of Ms. B’s complaint was unfair as she had used information she learned during a suspension meeting to formalise her own complaint.
The company, meanwhile, argued to the Commission that the executive’s actions amounted to “higher end” sexual harassment that justified dismissal.
Commission took perpetrator’s side
At the unfair dismissal hearing, the Workplace Relations Commission accepted that the executive had made “unwanted” sexual remarks that degraded the women. And it agreed that the two incidents met the definition of sexual harassment under the company’s policy. However, the Commission noted that there were several issues with the company’s disciplinary procedure.
It said that its classification of the incidents as “high severity” sexual harassment was “too extreme.” The Commission noted that it was not within the investigator’s terms of reference to determine the severity. It also observed that the company’s disciplinary panel had failed in its duty by simply adopting the investigator’s opinion. The Commission also highlighted that the company had not reviewed the investigation report and hadn’t properly considered the executive’s defence.
Investigation was ‘rushed’ and procedurally unfair
The Workplace Relations Commission also found that the company’s use of the September 2022 incident, for which no action had been taken at the time, was unfair. In addition, the executive had been denied the chance to appeal the findings of the investigation, despite the company’s policy providing for this.
The Commission also found that the disciplinary hearing was “rushed” as the panel spent as little as 20 minutes considering the executive’s position. Despite these findings, the Commission stated that the executive “contributed significantly” to the company’s decision to sack him. This led it to reduce the executive’s compensation for two years’ loss of earnings from €73,500 to €22,500 (around $AU$40,000). The executive was out of work for six months following his dismissal and was earning €314 less per week in his new job.
Have you faced sexual harassment at work?
Sexual Harassment Australia is here to support you. For over 30 years, our experienced advocates have helped Australians stand up to inappropriate behaviour, victimisation and workplace misconduct. We’ll listen without judgment, explain your rights and guide you through the process of making a claim.
Your first consultation is free and completely confidential, so you can understand your options before taking the next step. Call us today on 1800 333 666 to speak to someone who genuinely cares.
