A dealer at Brisbane’s The Star casino who faced sexual harassment from her manager has won more than $126,000 in compensation. The dealer had reported an earlier instance of sexual harassment to her manager, who told her “I would have done a lot worse to you.” He later sexually assaulted her in a Brisbane mall and was criminally charged. The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission found The Star vicariously liable because it allowed managers to “skip through” harassment training while they were busy managing the casino floor.
In this article, we’ll look at the events of this sexual harassment case Loquias v The Star Entertainment Group and John Dwyer [2026] and why the victim was awarded such a large payout.
Casino’s ‘tokenistic’ sexual harassment training backfires
Olivia Loquias began working as a casual games dealer at Brisbane’s The Star in 2019. Between September 2020 and March 2021, she alleged that she experienced sexual harassment from a senior gaming area manager, John Dwyer. Ms. Loquias claimed that it took place both at The Star and at venues outside of her usual workplace.
In 2016, a different female dealer at The Star had lodged a substantiated harassment complaint against Mr. Dwyer. She had accused him of making lewd remarks about masturbation. Mr. Dwyer was issued a final warning at the time. However, The Star permitted him to return to its standard sexual harassment training cycle. This training became a central issue in the subsequent Queensland Industrial Relations Commission hearing.
Mr. Dwyer was required to complete The Star’s code of conduct and “Do the Right Thing” training modules every two years. Both modules provided specific guidance on sexual harassment expectations at the company. The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission heard that by 2017, this training had moved from face-to-face sessions to online modules.
Unwanted sexual touching, comments and worse
The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission examined several allegations of harassment made by Ms. Loquias against Mr. Dwyer. She claimed that these had taken place while she was working at The Star. She alleged that on one occasion, while she was working on the gaming floor, Mr. Dwyer pinched her arm. When Ms. Loquias asked him why he did that, he simply laughed. She also claimed that Mr. Dwyer frequently touched her forehead, directing her not to frown so she would not “look ugly.” Following a training session, Mr. Dwyer reportedly engaged in further harassment by telling Ms. Loquias he “didn’t mind” her wearing a singlet because he could see her “tits.”
In early December 2020, Ms. Loquias alerted Mr. Dwyer to the harassment she was facing from two other supervisors. He did not take the matter seriously or offer protection. Instead, Mr. Dwyer allegedly replied: “You’re lucky I wasn’t there. I would have done a lot worse to you.” Then, on 12 February 2021, Ms. Loquias was on a break on the level 3 smoking balcony when Mr. Dwyer approached her and a colleague. He made comments about their “arses” and “tits” looking good, stating that if he were younger, he “would do some things” to them.
‘I am not at work… I can do what I want’: Manager sexually assaulted dealer
The events escalated on 6 March 2021 when the sexual harassment extended outside of the workplace. After attending a colleague’s 21st birthday party, Ms. Loquias was walking through a Brisbane mall when Mr. Dwyer allegedly grabbed her buttocks twice. When she objected to the assault, he reportedly replied: “I am not at work … I can do what I want.” He also followed her into a nightclub where he continued his “disgusting” behaviour by throwing ice at her. He also attempted to push her over and told her he was “trying to look up” her dress.
Ms. Loquias reported the assaults to the Queensland police and Mr. Dwyer was charged and faced criminal proceedings. On 11 May 2021, he pleaded guilty to a charge of assault in the Brisbane Magistrates Court.
Manager summarily dismissed for sexual harassment
Ms. Loquias made her first formal internal complaint about Mr. Dwyer’s conduct on 9 March 2021, three days after the sexual assault. Mr. Dwyer’s 23-year career at the casino ended shortly after the formal complaint was investigated. He was stood down by The Star while it reviewed the allegations of sexual harassment. and the police report. Mr. Dwyer faced an immediate termination of employment in late March 2021 for serious misconduct.
The company determined that his behaviour, particularly the physical assault and the inappropriate comments made to a junior staff member, constituted a fundamental breach of its code of conduct and “Respect at Work” policies.
Sexual harassment led to mental health issues, derailed uni plans
Following all these instances of harassment and assault, Ms. Loquias suffered a significant decline in her mental health. Medical reports from her doctors noted that she suffered from “excessive” worry, “lack of enjoyment” of any activities, and insomnia. The psychological distress was so severe that her academic performance at the Queensland University of Technology plummeted. It ultimately led to Ms. Loquias failing subjects and delaying her graduation as a software developer until the end of 2026.
Ms. Loquias first lodged a formal sexual harassment complaint with the Queensland Human Rights Commission in early 2022. This complaint named both The Star Entertainment QLD Limited and Mr. Dwyer as respondents. At that time, Ms. Loquias was still an employee of The Star. However, she had taken significant periods of leave due to the psychological distress caused by the harassment. Her complaint was not resolved during the conciliation process, so it proceeded to a formal hearing at the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission.
Argued employer took ‘tokenistic’ approach to sexual harassment training
Ms. Loquias’ complaint against The Star was specifically focused on its failure to protect her and its “ineffective” approach to harassment training. She argued that The Star had not taken all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment. Ms. Loquias contended that simply requiring staff to view online slides every two years was a “tokenistic” approach to compliance.
She noted that Mr. Dwyer had a prior substantiated history of sexual harassment from 2016. Ms. Loquias therefore argued that The Star should have implemented much stricter, face-to-face, or more frequent training specifically for him. She maintained that this was needed so he understood the “precariousness” of his continued employment.
Ms. Loquias also argued that the sexual assault in the Brisbane mall was a direct extension of her employment relationship with The Star. She claimed that Mr. Dwyer used his senior position and the “power imbalance” to make her feel she could not safely reject his advances. She argued that his statement, “I am not at work… I can do what I want,” was a deliberate attempt to exploit the lack of physical supervision while still relying on the fact that he was her boss.
Abuse had ‘stolen’ years from her professional development
Ms. Loquias used The Star’s own response to the Brisbane mall assault against them. She noted that the company chose to investigate the allegations and summarily terminated Mr. Dwyer for serious misconduct. Ms. Loquias argued that this meant The Star had essentially admitted that his off-site behaviour was sufficiently connected to his employment. If the conduct wasn’t work-related, she argued, the company would not have had the legal grounds to fire him for it.
In her claim, Ms. Loquias sought significant financial compensation for the “catastrophic” psychological and professional toll the harassment had taken on her life. Beyond general damages for pain and suffering, she sought compensation for future economic loss. This was because the trauma had “stolen” several years of her professional career path. Ms. Loquias said that it caused her to fail university subjects and delayed her entry into the workforce as a software developer by several years.
Employer argued sexual harassment training was ‘typical’
In response to the sexual harassment claim, The Star argued that it had taken reasonable steps to prevent the harassment Ms. Loquias faced. The company pointed to its extensive slide decks and the fact that Mr. Dwyer had completed his mandatory training modules, which it described as “effective.”
The Star’s legal team argued that its training modules, which involved PowerPoint information with quiz testing, were “typical” of corporate training programs. It contended that Mr. Dwyer knew the rules but chose to break them. The casino maintained that no amount of extra training “would have changed anything” in this case.
Managers often ‘skipped through’ training while on gaming floor
However, Mr. Dwyer’s testimony to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission undermined The Star’s defence. He stated that the transition from face-to-face to online training was “supposed to be more efficient.” However, Mr. Dwyer said that it was not and that “skipping happens.”
He admitted that managers were expected to complete sexual harassment modules while simultaneously supervising the gaming floor. He told the Commission that “people just skip through it” because they are busy and “under the pump.”
Commission slammed ‘quicker and cheaper’ sexual harassment compliance
Ms. Loquias’ harassment claim was heard by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission in January 2026. By this time, she was no longer working at The Star and was focussing on her studies. The Commission was particularly critical of how The Star delivered its sexual harassment training. It found that the expectation for staff to complete the online modules was not practical given the reality of the gaming floor. The Commission ruled that “genuine” training requires a level of focus that is impossible when employees are “under the pump.”
Evidence showed that managers like Mr. Dwyer were expected to complete their modules while simultaneously supervising active gaming tables. The Commission noted that The Star’s training had previously been delivered in face-to-face sessions where staff were required to stop their duties. However, the delivery was changed to an online format because it was “quicker and cheaper.” The Commission found that in streamlining its training, the company failed to take the “reasonable steps” required to prevent sexual harassment.
Manager should have been required to take face-to-face training
A critical part of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission’s ruling involved The Star’s knowledge of Mr. Dwyer’s past. Because he had been on a final warning for sexual harassment in 2016, the Commission found that the standard biennial training cycle was insufficient. It said that for a “repeat offender,” the employer had a heightened duty. It suggested that annual face-to-face training should have been mandatory for Mr. Dwyer.
This would have served as a “sobering” and constant reminder that his employment was “precarious” and that his conduct was being closely monitored. The Commission found that by treating him like any other employee, The Star failed to take the reasonable steps required to prevent a recurrence.
No vicarious liability for Brisbane mall assault
The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission considered whether The Star should be held vicariously liable for the physical assault. While Ms. Loquias argued that the incident was an extension of the workplace power imbalance, the Commission ruled that the assault occurred outside the “course of employment.” Because the event took place after a private birthday party at a public venue, and not during work hours or on casino property, the Commission determined that the connection to the employment relationship was not strong enough.
Employer and manager forced to pay sexual harassment compensation
Ultimately, the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission ruled that The Star was vicariously liable for the sexual harassment Ms. Loquias endured in the workplace. The Commission awarded a total of $90,000 in general damages, which increased to nearly $100,000 once interest was applied. This liability was split 40/60 between the workplace incidents and the Brisbane mall assault. Consequently, The Star and Mr. Dwyer were held jointly liable for $39,530.51 in general damages, while Mr. Dwyer was ordered to pay a further $59,295.76 personally for the mall assault.
The financial impact of the “stolen” career years was also split. The Star and Mr. Dwyer were jointly responsible for $7,125.29 of her future economic loss, while Mr Dwyer was ordered to personally pay an additional $10,687.94. When including interest, medical expenses, and the $3,294.21 in aggravated damages against Mr. Dwyer for his “I can do what I want” comments, the total compensation awarded to Ms. Loquias reached $126,863.22.
We can help you stand up to workplace sexual harassment
If you have been subjected to sexual harassment or discrimination, we at Sexual Harassment Australia can help. For over 20 years, we’ve helped victims secure the compensation they deserve by holding abusers and employers to account.
We offer a no win, no fee service and can give you the guidance needed to take action through the Australian Human Rights Commission, Fair Work Commission or other state-based bodies.
We’re here to listen to your story and plan your next steps to getting justice. Contact us now on 1800 333 666 for your free, confidential consultation.
Read similar articles to “Casino Dealer Wins $126K for Sexual Harassment“
Stop Sexual Harassment Before it Starts. What Can I do?
Sexual Harassment In The Hospitality Industry
