Race Discrimination Update: Risks for businesses failing to deal with racist abuse in the workplace

Workplace culture, banter between colleagues and ‘jocular repartee’ may blur the lines of what is acceptable workplace behaviour and what is offensive behaviour that breaches anti-discrimination legislation. Recent decisions highlight the importance of employers taking action when complaints from employees are received and the need for effective communication of anti-discrimination policies.

In Murugesu v Australian Postal Corporation & Anor1, a truck driver employed by Australia Post succeeded in his race discrimination claim in relation to racist insults directed at him in the course of his employment.

The driver alleged he had been subjected over a period of years to remarks by a colleague such as ‘black b*stard’ and ‘ni*ger’, and told to ‘go home to Sri Lanka by boat’.

The Court held that the racist insults inflicted upon the applicant by his colleague involved a clear distinction based on the applicant’s race, colour and national and ethnic origin, and that there was equally no question that they had the effect of nullifying and impairing the applicant’s enjoyment, on an equal footing, of his human right to just and favourable conditions at work.

Judge Burchardt stated ‘the right to just and favourable conditions of work includes the right to work in an environment free of racist insult.’

Further, the Court found that despite having sound policies and workplace training in place, Australia Post did not effectively or adequately respond to the applicant’s complaints about the racist comments. The Judge found that the applicant’s complaints were met with scepticism and that Australia Post’s failure to do anything about the complaints was so stark that it could not be said that Australia Post took reasonable steps to avoid vicarious liability.

The applicant was awarded $40,000 by way of compensation for the loss and damage he suffered, to be paid by Australia Post and the employee who engaged in the discriminatory conduct.2

In another recent decision, the Northern Territory Anti-Discrimination Commission held an employer liable for derogatory comments made to the applicant by colleagues to the effect that ‘Aboriginal people relied too much on handouts, took liberties and cheated the system’. The Commission found that the comments caused damage to the applicant and impaired his equal opportunity under the Northern Territory’s Anti-Discrimination Act.

The Commissioner noted that ‘discriminatory conduct did not necessarily import malice or even intent and that race-based language could be used without malice and perhaps even with good intent, but in the wrong context, can nullify or limit equal opportunity, or be less favourable treatment.’3

The employer was held vicariously liable for the comments, having failed to demonstrate that it took all reasonable steps to prevent the race discrimination. The Commissioner held that the mere existence of anti-discrimination policies and procedures was insufficient to show that the employer took all reasonable steps to prevent the discriminatory conduct.

The colleagues were ordered to pay $12,000 in compensation between them and the employer was ordered to pay $3,000.

Lessons for employers

These cases are a reminder that employers must remain vigilant about the culture and environment fostered in the workplace. Racially offensive or insulting language has no place in the workplace and employers will be held vicariously liable for such discriminatory behaviour if they fail to take reasonable steps to prevent it. This will include having anti-discrimination policies in place, ensuring they are effectively communicated and enforced, and taking all complaints seriously.

1[2015] FCCA 2852
2[2016] FCCA 2355
3Newchurch v Centreprise Resource Group Pty Ltd & Anors [2016] NTADComm 1


Emma Woolley

Partner & Head of Family Office Advisory

Karl Rozenbergs

Partner & Co-Lead, Health & Community

Ben Hamilton

Partner & Technology and Digital Economy Co-Lead

James Deady

Partner & Technology and Digital Economy Co-Lead

Eugene Chen

Partner & Head of China Practice

Oliver Jankowsky

Partner & Head of International Practice

John Bassilios

Partner & Fintech and Blockchain Lead

Matthew Curll

Partner & Insurance National Practice Leader

Melanie Smith

Director – Business Development, Marketing and Communications

Natalie Bannister

Partner & Commercial National Practice Leader

Nathan Kennedy

Partner, Head of Pro Bono & Community and ESG Co-Lead

William Moore

Partner & Head of Private Clients Advisory

Mark Dessi

Partner & Energy Leader

James Bull

Special Counsel & Frank Lab Co-Lead

Melanie James

People & Culture Manager

Jacqui Barrett

Partner & Head of US Desk

Lauren Parrant

Senior People & Culture Advisor

Melinda Woledge

Marketing & Communications Manager

Jasmine Koh

Senior Associate & Frank Lab Co-Lead

Alison Choy Flannigan

Partner & Co-Lead, Health & Community

Jordon Lee


Geoff Benson


Meg Lee

Partner & ESG Co-Lead

John Gray

Partner, Technology & Digital Economy Co-Lead and NSW Government Co-Lead

Harvey Duckett


Luke Denham


Billie Kerkez

Manager – Smarter Recovery Solutions

Jemima Whiteman


Bradley White


Sarah Khan


Audrey Leahy

Special Counsel & Head of Irish Desk

Nicole Tumiati

Partner & Retail & Consumer Goods Leader

Marie Mitilineos


Gloria Tam


Peter Jones

Senior Commercial Counsel

Eden Winokur

Partner & Head of Cyber

Jennifer Degotardi

Partner & NSW Government Co-Lead

Sheldon Fu


Claire Bourke


Chloe Taylor


Silvana Brcina


Daphne Schilizzi


Andrew Banks


Isabella Urso


Jessica Liu


Amelia Spratt


Lisa Ziegert

Director – Client Solutions

Luke Raams


Emma McDonald


Carl Ayers


Maddison Reznik

Senior Associate & Trade Marks Attorney

Rebecca Dodd


Gretel Burns


Ruby Hunt

Pro Bono & Community Co-ordinator

Rachel Bonic


Samantha Frost


Emma Bechaz


You might be also interested in...

Privacy | 30 Jan 2017

It’s nothing personal… Federal Court finds that ‘personal information’ must be information ‘about an individual’

On 19 January 2017, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia handed down its much anticipated decision in relation to whether certain types of network data stored by Telstra Corporation Limited (Telstra) was ‘personal information’ for the purposes of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act).

Employment & Workplace Relations | 19 Jan 2017

The Trump effect: tips to make your workplace ‘Great Again’ in 2017

In late 2016, millions watched with mixed emotions as something which many may once have thought impossible (or at least very unlikely), took place.