Board’s ‘Disgraceful’ Refusal to Dismiss Sexual Harasser Led to Forced Resignation

A Perth communications manager who was forced to resign after being covertly filmed and sexually harassed has scored a big win at the Fair Work Commission. The employer’s board decided to keep the harasser in his director role despite the substantiated workplace sexual harassment allegations. Instead of dismissal, the employer restricted the harasser to attend meetings via Zoom and banned him from the office unless he gave prior notice. The Commission found this was a “disgraceful” response, ruling that the victim had no other option but to resign.

In this article, we look at the events of this Fair Work general protections claim Madison Snow v WA MirningPeople Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC [2026]. Later, we look at why the Fair Work Commission decided to uphold the reinstatement of a university professor who was dismissed following accusations of sexual harassment.

Case summary: Madison Snow v WA Mirning People Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC [2026]

• Core dispute: Constructive dismissal following substantiated sexual harassment by a company director and the board’s failure to remove him.
  
  
• Key worker argument: Forced to resign due to an unsafe work environment and workplace sexual harassment from “predatory” director.
  
  
• Key employer argument: Raised jurisdictional objection arguing no termination of employment occurred, the resignation was voluntary and unambiguous.
  
  
• FWC ruling: The employee was constructively dismissed. The Fair Work Commission ruled the board’s inaction gave her no real choice but to resign.
  
  
• Outcome: Jurisdictional objection rejected. The Fair Work general protections claim was permitted to proceed to a conference.

‘Your arse was in the centre of the screen’: Sexual harassment leads to forced resignation

Perth-based Madison Snow began working as a communications and projects manager for WA Mirning People Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC in May 2024. The events that led to her termination of employment began in May 2025 during a work trip. Ms. Snow travelled to Mirning Country, situated in the coastal region of the Great Australian Bight. While Ms. Snow was retrieving gear from a vehicle, a colleague approached her and said, “Madi, I have to tell you something. Something really bad has happened.”

The colleague then told Ms. Snow that Leslie Shultz, a director of WA Mirning People, had been filming her inappropriately. The colleague said that they had been sitting next to Mr. Shultz and glanced at his phone, telling her that “your arse was in the centre of the screen.” In her Fair Work general protections claim, Ms. Snow said that she became “very frightened and panicked.” She then suffered a panic attack in the sand dunes. Ms. Snow did not immediately report the matter to police to avoid putting pressure on her colleagues. However, she did notify WA Mirning People’s lawyer.

Workplace sexual harassment included ‘predatory’ comments and touching

An investigation was launched, during which further allegations of workplace sexual harassment emerged. Ms Snow alleged that Mr. Schultz had inappropriately touched her on the hip and pulled her toward him. He also allegedly made inappropriate comments on Valentine’s Day. This included offering to be her date if her boyfriend did not take her out, and regularly made comments about her appearance.

In her Fair Work general protections claim, Ms. Snow detailed how her employer’s lack of communication and support during the sexual harassment investigation caused her distress. When the investigation had played its course, the new CEO, Mr. D’Antoine, confirmed that all of the allegations levelled against Mr. Schultz had been proven.

Forced to resign due to harasser remaining in job

Despite this, on 19 September 2025, WA Mirning People’s board determined that Mr. Schultz would only receive a formal final warning and keep his job. As a solution to the workplace sexual harassment, the organistion restricted him to attending meetings via Zoom and banned him from the office unless he gave prior notice. Ms. Snow described this outcome as a betrayal, calling Mr. Schultz’s behaviour “sexually motivated and predatory.”

On 27 October 2025, Ms. Snow submitted her resignation, citing an “unsafe” and hostile working environment and the “distressing” mishandling of the workplace sexual harassment investigation. She said that 1 January 2026 would be her final day. However, on 11 November 2025, WA Mirning People directed her to cease work immediately and locked her out of its IT systems. The corporation argued this was because Ms. Snow had become “agitated” and allegedly threatened to delete its social media content.

Why did the worker argue she had been forced to resign?

In her Fair Work general protections claim, Ms. Snow argued that her termination of employment was a constructive dismissal for the following reasons:

• Her resignation was driven by the unsafe working environment and because the Board’s conduct left her with no choice.
  
  
• The Board failed to take all available steps to remove Mr. Schultz, such as notifying the membership for a vote.
  
  
• WA Mirning People’s efforts to separate Ms. Snow from Mr. Schultz were insufficient because the director still held systemic authority over her role.
  
  
• The Board’s lack of meaningful action created an ultimatum where her only path to psychological safety was the termination of employment.
  
  
• Every allegation of workplace sexual harassment against the director had been proven, making his continued presence in the workplace highly inappropriate.

In response to her Fair Work general protections claim, the corporation raised a jurisdictional objection. It argued that no termination of employment had occurred because Ms. Snow had resigned in “clear and unambiguous terms.” The employer contended that it had taken reasonable steps to support her, including employee assistance program services and physical separation from the director.

Why did Fair Work rule the sexual harassment led to constructive dismisal?

The jurisdictional objection to Ms. Snow’s Fair Work general protections claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in March 2026. It ruled that she had faced dismissal as she had been forced to resign. The Commission made the following findings:

• While the CEO had tried to help Ms. Snow with regard to the workplace sexual harassment, the Board had failed to take the necessary steps to remove Mr. Schultz.
  
  
• The Board had not informed the corporation’s members of the substantiated sexual misconduct, which would have allowed them to vote on his removal.
  
  
• It was “unreasonable” for Ms Snow to be expected to continue working at WA Mirning People while Mr Schultz remained on the Board.
  
  
• The fact that Mr Schultz kept his position after the workplace sexual harassment was substantiated was described as “disgraceful.”
  
  
• The physical separation via Zoom was insufficient because Mr Schultz maintained a level of authority over Ms Snow that was “highly inappropriate.”

Termination of employment was a result of employer’s conduct

Ultimately, the Fair Work Commission found that the Board’s lack of action effectively brought Ms. Snow’s employment to an end. It ruled that she had discharged her onus to prove she had no option but to resign. The Commission also rejected the corporation’s complaints about Ms. Snow’s conduct after she resigned as “irrelevant.”

Because the jurisdictional objection was dismissed, Ms. Snow’s Fair Work general protections claim was listed for a conference to determine the final outcome.

Fair Work upholds reinstatement of professor accused of sexual harassment

In 2025, we covered the Fair Work unfair dismissal case of University of Melbourne professor Stephan Matthai. In 2026, the Fair Work Commission revisited the case after the university appealed the professor’s reinstatement. Let’s look at why the Commission decided to quash the appeal in University of Melbourne v Stephan Matthai [2026].

Case Summary: University of Melbourne v Stephan Matthai [2026]

• Core dispute: Appeal against the reinstatement of a professor accused of workplace sexual harassment and sacked in 2024 for “inaappropriate behaviour” that took place in 2017.
  
  
• Key legal issue: Whether a dismissal for serious misconduct can be ruled harsh due to a seven-year delay and a subsequent unblemished work record.
  
  
• FWC ruling: Appeal dismissed and reinstatement upheld. The Fair Work Commission confirmed that while a valid reason for termination existed, the punishment was disproportionate given the time elapsed.

Recap of alleged sexual harassment: Why did the professor get dismissed?

The professor faced termination of employment in December 2024 for an inappropriate relationship with a student. In 2017, the duo had exchanged numerous intimate text messages and emails. This included Dr. Matthai sending a text at 1am in the morning telling the student that “I am burning.” Other messages included Dr. Matthai asking the student about her “love languages” and inviting her to go swimming. The professor eventually sent her a photo of himself in his boxers.

The victim made a complaint to University of Melbourne in 2024, alleging sexual harassment in 2017. The university found that Dr. Matthai’s messages were “highly inappropriate,” but did not meet the definition of sexual harassment. He was fired for a workplace policy breach.

In July 2025, the Fair Work Commission found that the professor’s conduct was a valid reason for dismissal. However, it ruled that the seven-year delay between the events and his sacking made his dismissal unfair. The professor was therefore reinstated to his job.

Why did the university appeal the Fair Work unfair dismissal decision?

The University of Melbourne argued to the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission that the original reinstatement decision was made on the basis of several serious errors. It argued that the Commission failed to give enough weight to the “significant power imbalance” between a senior professor and a “vulnerable” international student. The university argued that any intimate communication in this context is “intrinsically in the domain of work” and should always justify termination of employment.

It also contended that trust and confidence in Dr. Matthai had been “irreparably damaged” and that he lacked genuine insight into his behaviour. The university pointed to his testimony where he suggested his actions were acceptable between “two consenting adults.” Also, the fact that he described his earlier apology as a strategic move, stating “if you have to bow, you bow low.”

Why did the Full Bench uphold the original unfair dismissal decision?

The Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission handed down its decision on 19 February 2026. While it granted permission to appeal due to the public interest in academic boundaries, it ultimately dismissed the university’s case and upheld the reinstatement. The reasons for the decision included:

• The Fair Work Commission was entitled to conclude that the dismissal was harsh because of the “historical nature of the conduct.”
  
  
• Because Dr. Matthai had worked for the university for seven years without further incident, it was reasonable to believe the employment relationship could be restored.
  
  
• The Commission had reasonably concluded that Dr. Matthai’s “indignant” attitude in the hearing was likely the result of “poor legal advice” rather than a character flaw.
  
  
• Dr. Matthai’s behaviour was serious misconduct and a valid reason for termination. However, even serious misconduct can lead to an unfair dismissal if the penalty is “disproportionate” due to mitigating factors like extreme delay.

Ultimately, the Full Bench found no appealable error in the decision to reinstate. The university was required to maintain Dr Matthai’s continuity of service and finalise the payment for lost wages.

Workplace sexual harassment FAQs

1. Can someone be fired for workplace sexual harassment?

Yes, workplace sexual harassment is considered serious misconduct under the Fair Work regulations, which generally justifies summary dismissal (termination without notice). However, the Fair Work Commission requires that any dismissal be a proportionate response.

In University of Melbourne v Stephan Matthai [2026], the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission confirmed that while “highly inappropriate behaviour” is a valid reason for dismissal, it can still be ruled unfair or harsh if the employer waits too long to act. In that case, there was a seven-year delay between the acts of alleged sexual harassment and the dismissal of Dr. Matthai.

2. How does a “power imbalance” factor into Fair Work sexual harassment cases?

The Fair Work Commission places significant weight on the power disparity between senior staff and subordinates when evaluating misconduct. In the University of Melbourne v Stephan Matthai [2025] case, the university successfully argued that intimate communications between a senior professor and a student were inherently harmful because of this imbalance. While the Commission agreed that such a power dynamic provided a valid reason for dismissal, the termination of employment was ultimately ruled unfair because the university waited seven years to take action.

Have you faced sexual harassment at work?

As you read in this article, employers often fail to protect workers even when workplace sexual harassment is proven. If you’ve been sexually harassed at work, we at a Sexual Harassment Australia can help.

We have spent more than 20 years supporting employees across Australia with sexual harassment claims, discrimination matters and Fair Work disputes. Our experienced team can help you understand your rights and take action.

Contact us now on 1800 333 666 for a free and confidential consultation.

Read similar articles to “‘Board’s ‘Disgraceful’ Refusal to Dismiss Sexual Harasser Led to Forced Resignation“

Airline Worker Wins $36K After Flawed Sexual Harassment Probe

‘So F*cking Hot’: Sexual Harassment Case Reveals Shocking Office Behaviour