A Perth worker who was dismissed for sexually harassing three female colleagues has been served a huge blow by the Fair Work Commission. The worker had his unfair dismissal claim rejected after the Commission ruled that his lurid conversations leering and offensive behaviour constituted serious sexual harassment.
The worker regularly spoke of “rough sex” and urinated with the bathroom door wide open, among other horrendous behaviour. So bad was his sexual harassment that the Commission upheld his dismissal despite major flaws in the employer’s disciplinary process.
Worker fired for sexual harassment after telling colleagues about his sex life
The events of this unfair dismissal case were detailed in the Fair Work Commission proceedings
Evan-Ashley Solace working for precision instrumentation company Mettler-Toledo as a scheduling assistant in December 2022. The events that ultimately led to his dismissal began to unfold over the following year and intensified into early 2025. Mettler-Toledo had received repeated complaints about Mr Solace from three female coworkers; Ms Kucharski, Ms Hopgood and Ms McCann.
The complaints regarded Mr Solace’s persistent use of sexualised language, offensive conduct and leering in the office. The complaints were made during early 2025, were detailed and wide-ranging.
‘So f*cking hot’: Tells colleague about his polyamory
Ms Kucharski, who started working at Mettler-Toledo in December 2023, reported experiencing issues with Mr Solace’s behaviour almost immediately. She told the Fair Work Commission that Mr Solace would “bait” female colleagues into asking questions about his private life. She said that he would share a small piece of information, which would elicit questions from female colleagues. Then, he would “share details about his sex life.”
Specifically, Ms Kucharski testified that Mr Solace told her he and his wife were involved in partner swapping and led a polyamorous lifestyle. He also discussed attending live action role play events where his wife would dress as a nurse. Mr Solace told Ms Kucharski that he found it, “so f*cking hot when she fixes me up while she is all dressed up.”
Fondling his wife and using urinal with door wide open
Ms Hopgood, who worked at Mettler-Toledo from October 2023 until January 2025, sat only about a metre away from Mr Solace’s desk. She told the Fair Work Commission that a week after she started, Mr Solace started a conversation about his polyamorous relationship. He asked her if she would be able to live such a lifestyle. Ms Hopgood told the Commission that she closed down the conversation “quickly” as it made her uncomfortable.
Both Ms Kucharski and Ms Hopgood said they also witnessed Mr Solace and his wife engaging in inappropriate kissing and fondling during lunchtime visits to the office. They also spoke of Mr Solace’s persistent hygiene breaches. The two women claimed he would “regularly” leave the toilet door open when he used the urinal. This meant that employees walking towards the kitchen or women’s toilet could see him.
Farted and belched regularly in office
Ms Kurchaski told the Fair Work Commission that during his last five months at Mettler-Toledo, Mr Solace would fart and belch every day. She cited one incident when Ms McCann asked Mr Solace to excuse himself, causing him to laugh. Ms Kurchaski also claimed that Mr Solace would fart while walking past her desk.
Ms Hopgood stated she ultimately chose to leave her employment in January 2025 due to Mr Solace. In her exit interview, she said that she would not be leaving if he did not work there, as his conduct made her feel “unsafe and constantly on edge.”
Told another woman about his wife being a furry
Ms McCann, who started at Mettler-Toledo in February 2025, worked closely with Mr Solace and witnessed similar conduct. Her evidence included further lurid details, such as Mr Solace telling her on Valentine’s Day 2025 that he and his wife were engaged in a polyamorous relationship and partner swapping.
Ms McCann cited an incident where Mr Solace had scratches on his arms and told her that they were “from rough sex he’d had at a sex party.” She also attested to him detailing that his wife was a “furry” who would make her own costumes to wear at sex parties.
Leered at colleague while saying how ‘lovely’ she looked
Mr Solace also told Ms McCann about his vasectomy. A week later, he said that his wife was having a tubal ligation due to them having multiple sexual partners. Ms McCann reported that Mr Solace made suggestive comments to Ms Kucharski. He complimented her on how “lovely” she looked in her pants, which was done in a “leering” fashion that made Ms McCann feel uneasy. Ms McCann and Ms Kucharski first met with a manager in March 2025, to raise their concerns. Ms Kucharski sent her official complaint via email on 31 March 2025.
The formal disciplinary process began on 21 April 2025. This was when Mr Solace was instructed not to attend work due to the “serious allegations” made against him. Mettler-Toledo then invited him to a show-cause meeting a few days later.Mr Solace provided a verbal response, followed by a written denial of the claims. He said that he “strongly den[ied] this allegation” of inappropriate conduct and that he deliberately maintains professional boundaries.
Dismissed for sexual harassment
Mettler-Toledo’s dismissal process was found to be significantly flawed by the Fair Work Commission. The company provided Mr Solace with insufficient details of the allegations prior to the initial meeting and gave him only 24 hours to respond to serious claims.
Furthermore, during a meeting in April 2024, Mettler-Toledo’s HR manager told Mr Solace that she knew he was denying the claims, but that “we feel that the claims are substantiated. Very much so.” This was deemed to be an indication that the company had pre-judged the outcome. Despite the initial flaws, Mettler-Toledo later provided detailed particulars of the four allegations to Mr Solace on 2 May 2025. On 13 May 2025, he was dismissed.
Denied sexual harassment allegations at Fair Work
Mr Solace subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal claim with the Fair Work Commission. He denied that the misconduct cited by Mettler-Toledo had taken place. He said that when he did discuss his private life with colleagues, it was on a “mutually conversational” basis.
He said that his comments were being “mistakenly” interpreted to be sexual by his coworkers due to “fear of the unknown” regarding his polyamorous lifestyle.
Mr Solace specifically denied discussing his live action role playing activities in a sexual context. He claimed that any comments on his vasectomy were made only to explain time off work. He also formally recorded his concern that he was not told of the allegations against him prior to or at his show cause meeting.
Meanwhile, responding to the unfair dismissal claim, Mettler-Toledo argued to the Commission that Mr Solace’s sexual harassment had been proven. It said that it justified summary dismissal. The company argued it was “implausible” that the complaints from the three women had been fabricated. Mettler-Toledo also argued that Mr Solace’s conduct met the definition of sexual harassment as outlined in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and the company’s code of conduct.
Sexual nature of worker’s comments explained at Fair Work
Mr Solace’s unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in xx 2025. It found the evidence from the three women to be credible. Ms McCann, a new employee who had not worked with Ms Hopgood, was found to be a “particularly credible” and “forthright” witness. The fact that their evidence covered the same complained conduct supported a finding that the events did happen.
The Commission found that Mr Solace’s conduct went beyond identifying his relationship and lifestyle. It accepted that he regularly spoke about lurid details of his and his wife’s sex life to the three complainants. The Commission also accepted that his comments about live action role playing were also correctly interpreted as sexual by the women. This was because Mr Solace would describe these activities in the same conversation as describing how ‘hot’ he found his wife when she would tend to him.
Conduct met definition of sexual harassment
Given these findings, the Fair Work Commission concluded that Mr Solace’s conduct met the legal definition of sexual harassment. This was because it was
- Conduct of a sexual nature: The frequency and detail of his conversations, his leering and his physical displays of affection constituted sexual conduct.
- Unwelcome: The Commission accepted that the three women would attempt to disengage from conversations or ignore him. This proved that the conduct was unwelcome, even without an explicit instruction to stop.
- A reasonable person would be offended: Given the office environment and lack of evidence for consensual sharing of personal sexual details, the COmmission concluded that a “reasonable person” would anticipate the possibility of the women being “offended, humiliated or intimidated” by the conduct.
The Commission also accepted the evidence that Mr Solace would “openly and deliberately” burp and fart in the office on a regular basis. It also acknowledged that he would leave the male toilet door open. This was not deemed a valid reason for dismissal on its own. However, it supported the finding of a valid reason when combined with the sexual harassment.
Ultimately, the Commission found that Mr Solace did sexually harass Ms Hopgood, Ms Kucharski and Ms McCann. This constituted serious misconduct and a valid reason for dismissal.
‘Shambolic’ procedural deficiencies found
The Fair Work Commission heavily criticised Mettler-Toledo’s dismissal process, describing its handling of Mr Solace’s allegations as “shambolic.” It considered this term as “generous” to Mettler Toledo.” This was due to several procedural flaws. The Commission noted that the company had not notified Mr Solace of the reason for his dismissal prior to the decision being made.
Mettler-Toledo had also only given Mr Solace 24 hours to respond to the allegations initially. And the company had pre-judged the outcome of the sexual harassment investigation. The Commission observed that Mettler-Toledo’s management told Mr Solace at the first meeting that they “feel” that the claims were substantiated and encouraged him to find an “exit pathway.”
Fair Work: The workplace is not the place for sex talk
But dispute these serious procedural deficiencies, the Fair Work Commission ultimately found that they were outweighed by Mr Solace’s sexual harassment and serious misconduct. His unfair dismissal claim was therefore thrown out by the Commission. In making this ruling, the Commission said that there is “nothing wrong with being sex positive.” However, it stressed that there is a “time and place to be discussing your sex life” and the workplace is often neither unless there is “positive evidence that it is acceptable.”
If you’ve been subject to unwelcome sexual conduct at work, you do not have to endure it alone
Sexual Harassment Australia specialises in sexual harassment claims, fighting to establish your right to legal protection and financial compensation. As nationally recognised experts, we’ve supported thousands of workers across Australia to make Fair Work, Equal Opportunity and Human Rights claims. Don’t face it alone. Strict time limits apply, so reach out today for a free and confidential consultation on 1800 333 666.
