Tribunal rules employee sexually harassed colleague
An employee at a workshop in New Zealand who was caught peeping at a female colleague while she was at the toilet has been ordered to pay her over $60,000 for sexual harassment.
Tarun Kumar was the second in charge at the now-liquidated workshop, which was also owned by his friend.
The case against Kumar was related to a series of events that took place in November 2016, where a female colleague alleged that he entered her office to push a ring on her finger, before touching her on the shoulder, waist, thigh, and the side of her buttock. He later apologised for the incident.
In another incident in the same month, Kumar unsuccessfully attempted to peep through the hole that led to office's toilet while his female colleague was inside.
The woman tried to catch Kumar by snapping a photo of him while he peeped through the hole but was unsuccessful.
According to the woman, Kumar attempting to peep at her through a hole in the toilet wall was the "catalyst for her resignation," after she allegedly suffered "day-to-day harassment" from her colleague.
The woman alleged that prior to the peeping incident, Kumar also commented on her clothes and appearance, sang Hindi love songs in her presence, touched her shoulder, encroached on her personal space, and sent her a video of a waitress displaying a menu on her bare buttocks.
Taken out of context
At the Human Rights Review Tribunal (HRRT), Kumar denied any sexual harassment, arguing that some of the behaviours were "taken out of context" and not of sexual nature.
According to Kumar, he would sometimes sing love songs because "he felt like singing," adding that they were not sung to his female colleague.
On the waitress video, Kumar said he also shared and laughed at it with other colleagues.
He accepted, however, that he knew about the hole in the toilet wall but took no action to repair it or report it to the owner.
Sexual harassment ruling
The HRRT sided with the female employee on the matter, ruling that all elements needed to prove a sexual harassment claim has been established.
"The Tribunal has found that Mr Kumar has sexually harassed [the employee]," it ruled.
"In particular, the tribunal has found that Mr Kumar subjected [the employee] to language, visual material, and physical behaviour of a sexual nature which was both unwelcome and offensive. This behaviour was repeated and of such a significant nature that it had a detrimental effect on her in respect of her employment (which she ultimately ended)."
According to the tribunal, the female employee's evidence was also more probable and plausible than Kumar's.
"Mr Kumar's evidence was at times implausible and exhibited multiple inconsistencies, both internally with his own earlier evidence and in contradiction with his own witness," the tribunal added.
The tribunal has ordered Kumar to pay the female employee lost wages in the sum of $25,160, in addition to $35,000 for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings.
