An immigrant cafe waitress has been awarded over $50,000 as part of a landmark sexual harassment ruling. The cafe owner had pinned the waitress to a sink and kissed her without consent, then pressured her to keep the incident a secret. The owner was also forced to pay the victim over $30,000 for stealing her wages. The ruling was the first under the 2023 amendments to the Fair Work Act, which introduced new protections against workplace sexual harassment.
Waitress wins $90K for sexual harassment and wage theft
The following events were detailed in the Federal Circuit and Family Court case Mejia v Capital City Cafe-Bar [2026]. Twenty-three-year-old Colombian Valeria Mejia arrived in Australia with her husband in October 2022. Living in the country on a bridging visa, she began working as a casual waitress at Café Capital Grind in Canberra in May 2024. The cafe was operated by Capital City Cafe-Bar Pty Limited, with Cheenu Kehal serving as its sole director.
From the outset, her employment was marked by significant breaches of Australian industrial law. Ms. Mejia was never provided a Fair Work Information Statement or a Casual Employment Information Statement. She was also not given access to the National Employment Standards or the Restaurant Industry Award 2020.
Waitress cornered in kitchen, kissed on lips
The situation that led to her sexual harassment claim took place on 29 July 2024. During her shift, Ms. Mejia attempted to discuss her pay with Mr. Kehal. She believed that she had been underpaid as she could not reconcile her bank deposits with her hours worked. Mr. Kehal avoided the conversation, telling her to “go shopping” and that he would pay for whatever she wanted. Later that afternoon, while Ms. Mejia was washing dishes, Mr. Kehal instructed the cafe’s chef to take the bins out. This was a task usually handled by Ms. Mejia.
Once they were alone, Mr. Kehal approached Ms. Mejia from behind. In her affidavit, she described how he “wrapped both of his arms around me” from behind. Ms. Mejia said that this prevented her arms from moving. Mr. Kehal then pinned her against the sink and waved his wallet in front of her, saying, “Take the money, take some.” Ms. Mejia told the court she was “shocked and scared” and felt “frozen,” fearing he might attempt to rape her. To get him away, she grabbed a $50 note and pushed him back. Ms. Mejia said that Mr. Kehal then “leant forward and kissed me on the lips.”
When the chef returned to the kitchen, Ms. Mejia began washing the dishes. Mr. Kehal told the chef that he could go home. At that point, Ms. Mejia said that she felt “terrified” at the prospect of the chef leaving, fearing that “worse would happen to me.” In Spanish, she asked the chef not to leave, and the duo departed together. Ms. Mejia never returned to work at the cafe. She had worked there for a total of 12 weeks.
Boss claimed sexual assault was ‘blunder’ and begged for secrecy
The day after the incident, Mr. Kehal was in Sydney with his wife when he sent a series of messages to Ms. Mejia. He said that he was “extremely sorry” and “I did not mean that… trust me I sware on my kids.” Mr. Kehal also said that “I’ve done blunder” and that it would not happen again, arguing that it was the “first and last time pls.”
He then pressured Ms. Mejia to keep the assault quiet, asking: “So last thing I wana clarify will u tell khush or this be a secret.” “Khush” referred to his wife, who had originally inducted Ms. Mejia into the business. On 31 July 2024, Mr. Kehal messaged again, asking Ms. Mejia to return to the cafe “as a solid team” because he and his wife were in Sydney and had “no other staff.”
Lodged sexual harassment and underpayment claims
Through her legal representatives Women’s Legal Centre ACT, Ms. Mejia lodged a sexual harassment claim in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Her claim was the first to be finalised via the court process under the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022. Coming into effect in March 2023, this amended the Fair Work Act 2009 to explicitly prohibit sexual harassment in connection with work.
The legislation introduced a new dispute resolution framework that allows workers to seek compensation and civil penalties through the Fair Work Commission and federal courts. The changes also established vicarious liability. This means that employers can be held responsible for the actions of their staff unless they can prove they took “all reasonable steps” to prevent the conduct.
In addition to the harassment claim, Ms. Mejia also complained to the Fair Work Ombudsman about her underpayments. Investigations revealed she had been underpaid $6,079.08. Via the Ombudsman, Ms. Mejia later received copies of pay slips that were “known to be false and misleading.” These documents understated her hours and overstated her pay rate to hide the fact that she was not being paid casual loading, overtime or superannuation.
Argued assault caused ‘significant distress,’ sought sexual harassment payout
Ms. Mejia told the Federal Circuit and Family Court that the sexual assault caused her “significant distress and humiliation.” She said that she felt unsafe in her own home, had trouble sleeping and cried as a result of Mr. Kehal’s assault. Ms. Mejia further argued that while she eventually found new employment, the incident left her unemployed and without income.
Her legal team from the Women’s Legal Centre ACT sought $50,000 in compensation for non-economic loss. They argued that any award of damages should be in line with cases brought under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, where awards of up to $175,000 have been made in recent years.
Cafe owner admitted to sexual harassment, but questioned affect on victim
The case took a turn on 17 March 2026, the day before the scheduled hearing, when Capital City Cafe-Bar Pty Limited was placed into liquidation. While the proceedings against the cafe were stayed, the legal case proceeded against Mr. Kehal personally. He had initially denied most of the allegations of sexual harassment. However, by the time of the court hearing Mr. Kehal admitted to the harassment and the industrial law contraventions.
His legal team accepted that Ms. Mejia would have suffered hurt, humiliation and anguish. However, they argued that the actual “level of that injury” should be considered in a limited context. They specifically pointed out that Ms. Mejia had only attended one GP consultation and did not receive ongoing “psychological intervention.” Mr. Kehal’s legal team also noted that Ms. Mejia had secured new employment 22 days after her last shift at the cafe. They argued that she had maintained continuing employment and suffered minimal economic loss.
Court slammed boss for abuse of authority, exploiting new immigrant
Ms. Mejia’s sexual harassment claim was heard by the Federal Circuit and Family Court in March 2026. It found that Mr. Kehal used his control over the business’s finances as a tool for harassment. By waving his wallet full of $50 and $100 notes while pinning Ms. Mejia to the sink, he was “holding out a financial gain.” The court viewed this as an attempt to use his superior financial position and his role as her paymaster to pressure her into accepting his physical advances.
It found that Mr. Kehal had “sought to leverage that authority in combination with [Ms. Mejia’s] vulnerabilities,” noting that she was a new migrant with limited resources. The court noted that Mr. Kehal used his authority to order the only other staff member, the chef, to leave the premises to take out the rubbish. And as the sole director, he was the only person Ms. Mejia could report to or look to for protection within the company. He leveraged the fact that she was dependent on him for her continued employment and visa stability.
Boss called out for trying to conceal harassment and wage theft
The Federal Circuit and Family Court found that Mr. Kehal further sought to use his authority to protect himself and silence the powerless Ms. Mejia. Specifically, by messaging her asking to keep the incident a secret. The court found that Mr. Kehal’s expressions of remorse in the messages were not an acceptance of responsibility but an attempt to avoid the consequences of his actions. It noted that he had not fully admitted to the sexual harassment until the day of the court hearing.
Beyond the harassment, the court found that the cafe had failed to pay casual loading, overtime rates and superannuation to Ms. Mejia. This resulted in a “comprehensive, if not complete” disregard for its legal obligations. The court found that the provision of false pay slips to the Fair Work Ombudsman was a deliberate attempt to deceive regulators. It noted that Ms. Mejia only received one payslip during her 12 weeks at the cafe, three days after her last shift.
Huge sexual harassment payout ordered
In the end, the Federal Circuit and Family Court ordered Mr. Kehal to pay $50,000 in compensation for the hurt and distress caused by the sexual harassment. It also ordered him to pay pecuniary penalties totalling $40,000. This included $9,390 for the sexual harassment, representing 50% of the statutory maximum. It also included $30,610 dollars for the breaches related to Ms. Mejia’s underpayments and record-keeping failures.
The court noted that the penalty for providing false records was particularly high because the conduct was “intended to avoid penalty by deception.” The court ordered all these amounts, totalling $90,000, to be paid directly to Ms. Mejia. She indicated that she would seek to reclaim the $6,079.08 in unpaid wages from the cafe’s liquidator.
Pharmacist wins AU$142K after employer found liable for sexual harassment
In Ireland, a workplace tribunal recently found that the nation’s public healthcare system, the Health Service Executive, was liable for the sexual harassment suffered by a hospital pharmacist. She was harassed by a senior pharmacist, a man in his 40s, beginning in May 2023. At that time, she was in the process of purchasing a house. She showed the location of her house to the senior pharmacist. He then remarked that “he would be able to see her in the shower” from his own home.
Further incidents took place in early 2024. The senior pharmacist showed the victim a photograph of two similar-looking women and asked which one was prettier. He then zoomed in on one and said that he preferred her because she had “larger breasts”. During the same month, the pharmacist alleged she was prevented from leaving the dispensary by the senior colleague. On another occasion, he remarked that her “lips looked nice today – what did you do?”
The situation culminated in June 2024, when the senior pharmacist showed the victim a picture of “naked male genitalia” while the two were alone in the pharmacy office. This prompted the pharmacist to file a formal complaint, seeking an investigation into seven separate incidents.
Harasser kept working after complaint, repeatedly bothered victim
The Health Service Executive’s investigation eventually confirmed that the seven instances of sexual harassment took place. However, the workplace tribunal heard evidence of significant procedural delays. The pharmacist was not interviewed until February 2025, more than eight months after she lodged her complaint.
The tribunal was informed that the senior pharmacist remained in his position for over a year following the complaint. To avoid him, the victim was moved to various locations within the hospital, yet she continued to encounter him regularly. The tribunal noted that the harasser “repeatedly inserted himself” into her work environment. He often entered her office despite being directed not to do so by HR.
The Health Service Executive defended its actions by stating it was required to provide the senior pharmacist with “due process”. However, the tribunal questioned the lack of similar protections for the victim, noting that she had the right to a safe working environment.
Employer forced to pay big for failing to prevent sexual harassment
The tribunal found that the senior pharmacist had “repeatedly violated” directions not to interact with the victim. He initially shrugged off the allegations, describing his actions as “office banter.” However, he later admitted that his behaviour “fell well wide of the mark.”
The Health Service Executive was also slammed for its failure to protect the victim. The tribunal said that a reasonable employer would have placed the senior pharmacist on paid leave during the investigation. It ruled that the public health system had “wholly failed” to protect her from the sexual harassment. The employer was ordered to pay the victim €86,717 (approximately AU$142,300) as compensation.
Have you faced sexual harassment?
As you read in this article, the law now provides much stronger protections against sexual harassment. Whether it’s physical harassment or inappropriate comments, employers are being held to account for their conduct.
Sexual Harassment Australia works with employees nationwide on unfair dismissal, general protections disputes, sexual harassment, and other workplace rights matters. We have a proven track record of holding employers accountable and ensuring workers get the compensation they deserve.
Strict deadlines apply for Fair Work and sexual harassment claims. Contact us now on 1800 333 666 for a free and confidential initial consultation.
Read similar articles to “‘Pinned and Kissed’: Migrant Waitress Wins $90K Sexual Harassment Payout“
A Kiss, Emojis and ‘Love you’: Fair Work Confirms this is Sexual Harassment
Are Unwelcome Comments Sexual Harassment? What Can I Do?
