If your organisation’s primary defence to a sexual harassment claim is “we have online training modules,” it may not be enough.
The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission decision, Loquias v The Star Entertainment Group and Dwyer [2026] QIRC 023 is a timely reminder that sexual harassment policies and online training modules do not automatically satisfy the “reasonable steps” defence.
The case involved substantiated sexual harassment by a senior manager toward a junior employee.
In the workplace (Pattern Allegations):
- Commenting that he did not mind the employee wearing a singlet to training because he could “see her ti*s”.
- Repeatedly pinching her on the arm while on shift.
- Touching her face and eyebrows and telling her not to frown because she would “look ugly”.
- Telling her, after she disclosed prior harassment by others, that she was “lucky” he was not there because he would have done “a lot worse”.
The Commission held these acts involved:
- Unsolicited physical intimacy; and
- Remarks with sexual connotations, in circumstances where a reasonable person would have anticipated the employee would feel offended, humiliated or intimidated.
Outside work (not in the course of employment):
- Telling her her “ar*e” and “ti*s” looked good at a social function.
- Saying he could “do what he wanted” because they were not at work.
- Grabbing her buttocks twice in a public area (to which he had previously pleaded guilty in criminal proceedings).
- Throwing ice at her, pushing her, and saying he was trying to look up her dress.
The key theme across the findings was the power imbalance between a 53-year-old manager and a 21-year-old junior employee, which was central to the objective “reasonable person” assessment.
The Commission found that:
- The conduct in the workplace amounted to sexual harassment under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld).
- The employer was vicariously liable for that conduct.
- Critically, the employer had not taken reasonable steps to prevent the contraventions.
The most important part for HR and Employers? The Court’s analysis of training.
The Legal Framework: What Are “Reasonable Steps”?
Under Queensland legislation, an employer can avoid vicarious liability if it proves it took reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment.
That does not require perfection. It does not require zero incidents. But it does require more than having a policy on the intranet.
The Commission accepted that the employer had:
- A Code of Conduct
- An Equal Employment Opportunity policy
- A grievance process
- Mandatory online training modules
- Biennial completion requirements
On paper, that sounds robust.
In practice, it was not enough.
The Problem: Training Without Engagement
The turning point in the case in regards to the vicarious liability of the employer was evidence about how the online training modules were actually completed.
The manager gave evidence that:
- Training was completed while still performing operational duties.
- Employees would often “skip through” modules.
- Answers could be changed if wrong.
- The content was repetitive and treated as a compliance exercise.
The Commission accepted that while the content of the training was appropriate, the manner of delivery was not.
The key finding was this:
Training undertaken while simultaneously performing work duties is not genuine engagement. It falls below reasonable expectations.
In other words, an employer cannot rely on online sexual harassment training as a “reasonable steps” defence if:
- It is treated as a tick-box exercise.
- There is no protected time to complete it.
- There is no real engagement.
- There is no reinforcement.
- There is no follow-up for high-risk individuals.
Heightened Risk Requires Heightened Response
An even more significant factor was that the manager had previously received a final warning for sexual harassment.
The Commission found that once an employer is on notice that a particular employee has engaged in sexual harassment, reasonable steps may require more than standard training.
For example:
- Additional targeted training
- Increased frequency of refresher training
- Documented supervision or monitoring
- Clear behavioural expectations reinforced in writing
- Explicit reminders of consequences
The employer had continued with standard biennial online modules. That was not sufficient in the circumstances.
This is a crucial compliance lesson for HR leaders. “Reasonable steps” is contextual. What is reasonable for a first-time employee may not be reasonable for someone already on a final warning.
Practical Lessons for HR and Employers
$126,864 in total was awarded.
$77,436 was solely payable by the manager.
This comprised:
- General damages: $59,295.76
- Future economic loss (including super): $10,687.94
- Past special damages (including interest): $2,657.71
- Future special damages: $1,500
- Aggravated damages (including interest): $3,294.21
If you are reviewing your sexual harassment framework in 2026, ask yourself:
- Are employees given dedicated time to complete training?
- Is completion monitored meaningfully, or just recorded?
- Are managers trained differently to frontline staff?
- Is refresher training more frequent for higher-risk roles?
- Do you take additional steps where prior misconduct has occurred?
Sexual harassment law has shifted from reactive complaint handling to proactive prevention. Courts are looking closely at whether employers have taken genuine, practical steps, not just procedural ones.
Online training modules can be part of the solution. But they are not, by themselves, a shield.
The message is clear:
If training is rushed, ignored, or treated as a compliance formality, it may not amount to “reasonable steps” at all.
We have undertaken sexual harassment training for a number of Employers which is both appropriate and practical.
Also check out the Employment Law Health Check which can help understand risks around sexual harassment and training.
Feel free to reach out on 07 4936 9100 or via email to Jonathan Mamaril, Director at jmamaril@southgeldard.com.au.
