A 20-year-old disabled trainee with severe anxiety and OCD has been awarded $125,000 for the workplace sexual harassment she experienced from her boss. The 41-year-old boss asked the trainee about her sexual fantasies and if she would have sex with him. The boss and his business refused to engage with conciliation and filed no formal defence. A federal court found both respondents had violated the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). It ruled that the director had exploited a severe power imbalance over a vulnerable young woman who had disclosed her psychological conditions on day one.
In this article, we look at the events of this workplace sexual harassment case Wood v Kendall [2026] and why the court ordered a huge payout.
Neurodivergent employees are disproportionately targets for sexual harassment
Studies have found that workers with conditions like autism, anxiety and ADHD face significantly higher rates of workplace harassment and discrimination. According to the Australian Human Rights Commission, nearly half of all Austrailan workers with a disability (48%) experienced workplace sexual harassment in the five years preceding 2022. This was compared to 33% of workers overall.
Meanwhile, data from the Australian Public Service found neurodivergent employees reported workplace harassment or bullying at double the rate of neurotypical colleagues. 18% of neurodivergent workers had reported as such. In the UK, one study found that 68% of disabled women reported being sexually harassed at work.
Sexual harassment case Summary: Wood v Kendall [2026]
- Jurisdiction: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
- Key employee argument: A 20-year-old trainee with severe anxiety and OCD argued she experienced workplace sexual harassment. She claimed that her employer was vicariously liable.
- Key employer argument: Offered no formal defense to the workplace sexual harassment allegations. After signing consent orders, they evaded the legal process entirely.
- Federal Court ruling: The company director exploited a severe power imbalance and failed to provide a safe workplace. The business and director were ordered to pay $125,238.43 in damages.
Sex pest boss targets disabled trainee half his age
Caitlin Wood started a two-week employment trial as an administrative assistant at Perth-based Heating & Cooling Australia Pty Ltd (trading as Hearns Hearth House) on 14 May 2023. She was receiving a disability support pension and had been referred to the business by a disability employment agency. Upon starting her role, Ms. Wood told the 41-year-old director, Kevin Kendall, that she lived with “extreme” anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder. The business operated without any formal HR guidelines, staff training or reporting procedures regarding acceptable workplace conduct.
By 18 May 2023, Ms. Wood was working completely alone with Mr. Kendall. Between midday and the end of her shift, Mr. Kendall engaged in a series of actions that were later described as inappropriate and deeply distressing. The conduct included asking “highly intimate” questions about whether she had a boyfriend and her sexual fantasies. Mr. Kendall then stepped into her personal space, tucked her hair behind her ear, and asked if she would let him kiss her if they were dating.
‘Wouldn’t we have sex?’: Workplace sexual harassment got worse
Ms. Wood started to “get a bit freaked out” that no-one outside could see what was happening through the business’s reflective windows. Mr. Kendall went on to ask Ms. Wood words to the effect of, “If we dated, wouldn’t we have sex?” He further stated that “I think you would want it to be special, not in the back alleyway.” Mr. Kendall also told Ms. Wood that she had “more of a chance of having sex than running this business.” This directly linked her future employment prospects to her compliance with his sexual advances.
Ms. Wood felt scared and sick, and her hands began to shake as she became overwhelmed. Not knowing how to respond, she laughed nervously, after which Mr. Kendall remarked on how quiet she had suddenly become. Ms. Wood left the workplace shortly after to attend a pre-arranged appointment with her psychologist. She recounted the entire experience to her psychologist and later told her mother about it.
Later that same day, Ms. Wood received a text message from Mr. Kendall. He told her that he’d just received a call from the employment agency and asked if she was OK. “I hope you feel better soon,” he added. Ms. Wood did not return to the business. She spoke to Mr. Kendall’s partner, who assured her that she would be paid for the trial hours completed. However, Ms. Wood was never paid.
What were the victim’s key arguments in her workplace sexual harassment claim?
In July 2024, Ms. Wood lodged a workplace sexual harassment complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission. When a conciliation failed to resolve the dispute, Ms. Wood initiated formal legal proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Her key arguments included:
- Mr. Kendall’s conduct was unwelcome, uninvited and sexual in nature, constituting workplace sexual harassment under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). It also violated the employment-related prohibitions of the Act.
- Mr. Kendall consciously leveraged a stark power imbalance by targeting a 20-year-old trainee who had disclosed her severe anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder.
- The circumstances of the sexual harassment – being alone inside a premises with reflective windows – were such that a reasonable person would have anticipated that she would feel offended, humiliated and intimidated.
- Her employer, Heating & Cooling Australia, was vicariously liable for the sexual harassment. This was because it had failed to implement any workplace policies, training, guideline or reporting procedures to prevent it.
- The psychological trauma caused her to lose all confidence around men. This rendered her incapable of working for a four-month period.
- The non-compliant behavior of Mr. Kendall and his business, including ignoring the Australian Human Rights Commission process, was unjustifiable and exacerbated her injury.
Ms. Wood sought $100,000 in general damages to compensate for non-economic loss. This amount reflected her ongoing psychological impact, trauma and loss of enjoyment of life caused by the sexual harassment. She also sought $15,000 in aggravated damages for the respondents’ evasive conduct throughout the litigation process.
Mr. Kendall and his company signed initial consent orders to attend court-referred mediation. However, they failed to attend the session and filed no formal defence to Ms. Wood’s workplace sexual harassment claim. This left Ms. Wood’s version of events unchallenged before the court. It forced her to seek special leave from her subsequent employer to manage the prolonged legal proceedings.
Why did the court find Kevin Kendall and Heating & Cooling Australia liable for sexual harassment?
The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia delivered its judgements of the workplace sexual harassment case in May 2026. The court ruled that Ms. Wood was subjected to unlawful sexual harassment. Its findings and reasons for the decision included:
- Mr. Kendall’s questions, physical actions and statements were inherently sexual and entirely unwelcome to Ms. Wood.
- A reasonable person would undoubtedly anticipate that a young trainee with psychological vulnerabilities would be intimidated and humiliated.
- The court rejected lower-scale benchmarks for damages, determining that the severe power imbalance warranted substantial awards.
- Medical evidence confirmed the workplace sexual harassment severely exacerbated Ms. Wood’s pre-existing anxious and depressive symptoms.
- Ms. Wood demonstrated ongoing psychological trauma through evidence of severe fear responses during an eye test with a male optometrist. She also had anxiety when interacting with male colleagues at her subsequent workplace.
- The corporate respondent failed to establish a statutory defence as Ms. Wood was never provided with a workplace policy, induction brochure or behavioural briefing.
- The court found that Heating & Cooling Australia Pty Ltd fell completely short of its proactive duties to eliminate workplace sexual harassment.
Court ordered massive workplace sexual harassment payout
The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia court accepted that Ms. Wood had experienced a substantial loss of enjoyment of her life that had lasted for almost three years. It noted that she did not look for a new job for four months because she was “too disturbed” at the idea of working with a man. The court ruled that $100,000 in general damages was entirely justified, with interest to be paid on past general damages at the 2% per annum.
The court then added $15,000 in aggravated damages for the improper conduct of the respondents during litigation. It said that their failure to engage with the court had actively hindered Ms. Wood’s psychological recovery. Ultimately, the court ordered Mr. Kendall and Heating & Cooling Australia to pay a total sum of $125,238.43. This final sum included an award of $10,238.43 for economic loss.
Workplace sexual harassment FAQs
- What is the definition of workplace sexual harassment?
Under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), workplace sexual harassment takes three main forms:
- An unwelcome sexual advance.
- An unwelcome request for sexual favours.
- Engages in other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.
The conduct must also meet a reasonable person test. A reasonable person would have anticipated the behaviour causing offence, humiliation or intimidation. The conduct can be physical, verbal or written, and a single incident is sufficient to constitute sexual harassment. Employers have a positive duty under the Sex Discrimination Act to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate it.
In Wood v Kendall [2026], a business owner asked his 20-year-old trainee about her sexual fantasies, tucked her hair behind her ear and linked her employment prospects to compliance with his advances. A federal court found that this conduct met the definition of workplace sexual harassment. The court noted that a reasonable person would have anticipated that a young trainee with disclosed psychological vulnerabilities would be offended, humiliated and intimidated by such conduct.
- Can an employer be held liable for workplace sexual harassment?
Yes. Under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), an employer can be held vicariously liable for sexual harassment carried out by an employee or agent. This is unless the employer can demonstrate it took all reasonable steps to prevent the conduct. What constitutes “reasonable steps” typically includes having written workplace policies, delivering regular staff training and maintaining accessible and confidential reporting procedures. Employers who can’t point to these measures will find it very difficult to escape liability. Since the Respect@Work reforms came into effect, employers also carry a positive duty to proactively eliminate sexual harassment.
In Wood v Kendall [2026], the employer had no workplace policies, induction process, staff training or reporting procedures whatsoever. The court found the company had therefore failed entirely to establish a statutory defence. The employer and its owner were held jointly liable for the $125,238.43 awarded to Ms. Wood.
We can help you get justice for workplace sexual harassment
As Wood v Kendall [2026] shows, employers who fail to protect workers from sexual harassment face substantial financial consequences. If you have experienced workplace sexual harassment, you don’t have to navigate it alone.
We at Sexual Harassment Australia have been at the forefront of sexual harassment claims in Australia for more than 20 years. We’ve represented employees in every state and territory, helping lodge over 10,000. Offering a no win, no fee arrangement, our team will assess your situation for free. We can handle the entire process on your behalf and fight to secure the compensation you deserve.
Strict time limits apply to sexual harassment claims, so don’t wait. Contact us for a confidential discussion on 1800 333 666 seven days a week.
Read similar articles to Boss Exploited Trainee’s Anxiety in $125K Sexual Harassment Case
Women to Sue Justice Heydon Over Sexual Harassment Complaint
Sexual Harassment: Employee Sacked For Rape Allegations
