Ss 2(5), S23(3) of SDO

The Complainant (C) alleged that her supervisor, R1, had sexually harassed her by commenting on her body figure, inviting her to meet in hotel rooms, sending his nude pictures to her by WhatsApp, and requesting to have her nude pictures etc.

C said R1 had threatened her that if she ever complained against him with their employer (R2), she might be dismissed and get a bad reference letter.

C lodged a complaint with R2 after she had been laid off due to restructuring and having obtained a reference letter. C alleged that R2 had been slow in taking action and finally concluded her complaint as unsubstantiated without duly considering the evidence she provided. C lodged a complaint with the EOC against R1 for sexual harassment and R2 for vicarious liability.

On learning that R1 was seriously ill during the early conciliation process, C withdrew the complaint against R1 as she felt that he should have learned a lesson.

The complaint against R2 was settled through early conciliation after R2 agreed to give a donation to a charity organisation.

Remarks:

As employers are vicariously liable for unlawful acts done by their employees in the course of employment under the SDO, it is important that reasonably practicable steps should be taken to prevent employees from doing the unlawful acts.

Ss 2(5), S23(2) of SDO

The Complainant (C) went on a business trip with her boss, R, shortly after she was hired as R’s personal assistant. C alleged that, during the trip, R touched and kissed her hands, brushed her back and suggested that they should spend a good time together in a resort hotel. As C refused to be kissed, R said that it would be hard for them to work together in a distant relationship.

At the end of the probation period, R informed C that he would not let her pass the probation as their expectations were different. Instead of explaining what his expectation was, R commented on C’s look and said she should seduce him to keep him motivated at work. C declined to extend her probation and terminated her employment with the company.

C lodged a complaint against R for sexual harassment. The complaint was settled through early conciliation after R agreed to pay C a sum of money as terms of settlement.

Remarks

It is unlawful under the SDO for a person to sexually harass a person employed by him or her at an establishment in Hong Kong, even if the act of sexual harassment takes place outside Hong Kong. Sexual harassment is any unwanted or uninvited sexual behavior which a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would have anticipated as offensive, humiliating, or intimidating.

Ss 2(5), S23(3) of SDO

The Complainant (C) was a temporary staff responsible for sales and marketing. One day, her supervisor (R) instructed her to go to the warehouse together with him to carry out stocktaking. After they entered the warehouse, R closed the door and hugged her from behind. C reported the case to the company and received Whatsapp messages from R twice apologising to her the same day.

C tendered resignation the next day as she felt very distressed.

C lodged a complaint with the EOC against R for sexual harassment. The case was settled through early conciliation. R agreed to provide C a letter of apology and make a donation of no less than HKD 1,000 to a specified NGO.

Remarks:

The Sex Discrimination Ordinance makes it unlawful for an employee to sexually harass a co-worker in the course of employment. A single incident can also amount to sexual harassment. The unwelcome behaviour needs not be repeated or continuous.

Ss 2(5), S23(3) of SDO

The Complainant (C) was an administration clerk. She alleged that the director of the company (R) had sexually harassed her in various occasions. Examples of the alleged acts including R, in the presence of C, told a female co-worker who was feeling sick to see pornographic movies as that would help her recuperation, and suggested a category III movie; R asked if C had pre-marital sex while they were in a car heading back to the office; and R asked C if all males in this world were her husbands and all females her sisters when they were working together.

C said she needed to seek medical treatment as a result of the sexual harassment. She tendered resignation about one week after the last incident together with her sick leave certificate. She did not give the one-month payment in lieu of notice as she was very distressed due to the sexual harassment.

C lodged a complaint with the EOC against R for sexual harassment. The case was settled through early conciliation. R agreed to provide a work reference letter, pay C a sum equal to one month basic salary of C, withdraw the labour claim against C for payment in lieu of notice and refrain from making comment on C’s performance if prospective employers call for reference. In return, C agreed to some terms related to business undertakings and provide the employer a letter of resignation on voluntary basis.

Remarks:

The Sex Discrimination Ordinance makes it unlawful for an employee to sexually harass a co-worker in the course of employment. Sexual harassment can involve physical, visual, verbal or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature which is uninvited and unwelcome. Unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature, though not directly or consciously targeted at a co-worker, may create a sexually hostile environment for the co-worker and is unlawful.

Ss 2(5), S9, S23(3), S46 of SDO

The Complainant (C) was a customer service assistant employed by a facility management company. She alleged that a co-worker (R1) sexually harassed her a few months after she started employment. The alleged acts include: patted C’s thighs while chatting, touched her face, chin and shoulder, commented on her appearance, asked if she had seen any pornographic movies herself or together with her boy friend. R1 also asked questions of C about her private life with her boy friend. C was frightened and fell sick.

C finally lodged a complaint with the employer (R2). She alleged that her complaint was not handled properly, and R2 subsequently terminated her employment while she was hospitalized.

C lodged complaints with the EOC against R1 for sexual harassment and R2 for vicarious liability as well as discrimination by way of victimisation. The cases were settled through early conciliation. As terms of settlement, R1 agreed to give C a verbal apology and pay her a sum approximately equivalent to three months’ salary of C. R2 agreed to pay C a sum approximately equivalent to five month’s salary of C and provide her an apology letter and a reference letter.

Remarks:

The Sex Discrimination Ordinance makes it unlawful for an employee to sexually harass a co-worker in the course of employment. Employers would be vicariously liable for the unlawful act of their employees, whether or not the act was done with the employer’s knowledge or approval. It shall be a defence for the employer to prove that reasonably practicable steps have been taken to prevent the employee from doing that act. It is also unlawful to discriminate an employee by way of victimization, e.g. terminate employment, because the employee alleged that he/she had been sexually harassed by a co-worker. Employers should handle all complaint fairly, seriously and promptly.

Ss 2(5), S9, S23(3), S46 of SDO

The Complainant (C) was an engineer. She complained that her project director (R1) sexually harassed her one day while he queried her about a project. C alleged that R1 draped over the back of her chair, breathing closely into her ear while viewing her computer. He then stroked her bare arm and C shouted at him to stop.

C reported the incident on the same day to the management. She was terminated five days later for reason of redundancy.

C lodged complaints with the EOC against R1 for sexual harassment and her employer, R2, for vicarious liability as well as discrimination by way of victimisation. The cases were jointly settled through early conciliation as the respondents agreed to pay C a sum approximately equivalent to four and a half months’ salary of C.

Remarks:

The Sex Discrimination Ordinance makes it unlawful for a person to sexually harass a co-worker in the course of employment. Acts of sexual harassment can be one-off or repeated. Employers would be vicariously liable for the unlawful act of their employees in the course of employment, whether or not the act was done with the employer’s knowledge or approval. It shall be a defence for the employer to prove that reasonably practicable steps have been taken to prevent the employee from doing that act. It is also unlawful to victimise an employee, e.g. terminate employment, because the latter alleged that he/she had been sexually harassed by a co-worker. Employers should handle all complaints fairly, seriously and promptly.

Ss 2(5) & 23 of SDO

The Complainant (C) is a nurse and the Respondent (R) was her colleague. During the group photo session at the annual dinner of her department, R grabbed C’s buttock as C and R proceeded to the front stage for a group photo. Fear of causing a scene, C remained silent at that time and walked away from R.

C lodged a complaint of sexual harassment with the EOC against R. At the EOC, the case was settled through fast track conciliation after R agreed to provide an apology letter to C.

Remarks:

The Sex Discrimination Ordinance makes it unlawful for an employee to sexually harass another employee in employment. Sexual harassment is any unwanted or uninvited sexual behavior which a reasonable person regards as offensive, humiliating, or intimidating. Sexual harassment can be one single incident or a series of on-going incidents.

Ss 2(5), 23 & 46 of SDO

The Complainant (C) was a clerical staff of company X. C alleged that his direct supervisor, Mr. Y, who is also one of the owners of the company for sexually harassing her since 2011. C alleged that Mr. Y requested C to have sexual relationship with him, hugged C from her back, held her hand, and sent text messages to her repeatedly. C rejected Mr. Y and told him not to do it again; otherwise, C would resign from the company. Mr. Y agreed. However, Mr. Y touched C’s waist again several days later. Although Mr. Y apologized to C afterwards, C felt offended by Mr. Y’s act.

C complained to another owner of company X, Mr. Z, about the alleged sexual harassment incidents. Mr. Z seemed to have knowledge about the incidents from Mr. Y before C’s complaint, but did not deal with the complaint. Several months later, C was dismissed by company X.

C lodged complaints of sexual harassment with the EOC against Mr. Y and against company X for being vicariously liable. The cases were settled through fast track conciliation after Mr. Y agreed to make a charity donation and to issue an apology letter. At the same time, company X agreed for its managerial staff to attend training on sexual harassment prevention in the workplace and to issue an apology letter for the inadequate handling of her complaint.

Remarks:

The Sex Discrimination Ordinance makes it unlawful to sexually harass another person in the workplace. Sexual harassment is any unwanted or uninvited sexual behavior which a reasonable person regards as offensive, humiliating, or intimidating. Employers would be vicariously liable for the acts of sexual harassment committed by their employees in the course of employment unless they have taken reasonably practicable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. Employers should seriously deal with the complaints lodged by their staff members.

Ss 2(5), 23 & 46 of SDO

The Complainant (C), was a manager of company X. One day, a colleague found out that Mr. Y, a co-worker sitting adjacent to C’s work cubicle, secretly took photos of C. The incident was reported to the human resource manager by that colleague. The photos, taken by Mr. Y’s smartphone, were all focused on the breasts and the upper parts of C’s body. When confronted by the human resource manager, Mr. Y admitted his doing and said he did it “for fun”. The human resource manager notified C about the incidents. After C found out the incident, she felt frustrated, humiliated and depressed. Eventually, C was diagnosed to have suffered post traumatic stress disorder. C also resigned from company X.

C lodged complaints of sexual harassment with the EOC against Mr. Y and against company X for being vicariously liable. The cases were settled through fast track conciliation after Mr. Y agreed to make a charity donation, to issue an apology letter and to make a monetary payment to C for her relevant medical expenses. At the same time, company X agreed to issue an apology letter and to make a monetary payment to C for her relevant medical expenses as well as for the injury to her feelings.

Remarks:

The Sex Discrimination Ordinance makes it unlawful to sexually harass another person in the workplace. Sexual harassment is any unwanted or uninvited sexual behavior which a reasonable person regards as offensive, humiliating, or intimidating. Employers would be vicariously liable for the acts of sexual harassment committed by their employees in the course of employment unless they have taken reasonably practicable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.

Ss 2(5) & 23 of SDO

The Complainant (C) is a foreign domestic worker working for a family of three. Soon after C started her employment, C alleged that one of the family members, an elderly male (X), started to sexually harass C. The alleged acts include: touching C’s thighs and private parts; taking off X’s own clothes and pants while asking C to help him put on some ointment; peeking at C while she was taking showers and kissing her cheeks. X had paid C money after some of the alleged incidents.

C lodged a complaint of sexual harassment with the EOC against the employer, the daughter of X. The case was settled through fast track conciliation after the employer agreed to make a monetary payment equivalent to about 5 months of C’s salary.

Remarks:

The Sex Discrimination Ordinance makes it unlawful for a person residing in any premises to sexually harass a worker employed by another person and carrying out in those premises all or part of her/his work in relation to his/her employment. The employer of the worker might be liable for the acts of the residents living in those premises.

Ss 2(5), 9, 23 & 46 of SDO

The Complainant (C) alleged that a male colleague (Mr. X) once went to C’s working area and talked to C. During the conversation, Mr. X pretended to kiss C and also made kissing sounds towards C. C felt offended by Mr. X’s act and asked why he did so. Mr. X said he was only doing it for fun and asked C not to be so serious. After this incident, Mr. X continued to approach C and talked to C in her working area. C told her colleagues about the incident and requested them to tell Mr. X not to go to C’s working area where she used to work alone again.

Eventually C’s supervisor, Ms. Y, heard about the incident and C’s request for Mr. X not to go to C’s working area. Ms. Y told C that if she did not feel comfortable seeing Mr. X, she could resign. C was also told that although her performance was fine, she seemed not happy working here. Ms. Y then advised C to resign. C finally resigned and claimed that she had done so reluctantly.

C lodged complaints of sexual harassment with the EOC against Mr. X and against the company for being vicariously liable. C also lodged a complaint of discrimination by way of victimisation against the company for advising her to resign. The cases were settled through fast track conciliation after Mr. X agreed to issue an apology letter. At the same time, the company agreed to install CCTV in the area that C previously worked, to undertake not to disclose to any third party of these complaints and to make a lump sum monetary payment to C for the injury to her feelings.

Remarks:

The Sex Discrimination Ordinance makes it unlawful to sexually harass another person in employment. Sexual harassment is any unwanted or uninvited sexual behavior which a reasonable person regards as offensive, humiliating, or intimidating. Employers would be vicariously liable for the acts of sexual harassment committed by their employees in the course of employment unless they have taken reasonably practicable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. It is also unlawful to victimise an employee, e.g. pressure to resign, because the latter had alleged that he/she had been sexually harassed by another colleague.

S23 of SDO

The Respondent (R) was the supervisor of the Complainant (C). They both worked as security guards. C alleged that she asked R for permission to leave her post for a short moment to change her stockings as they were worn. However, R repeatedly requested C to show him where the stockings were worn in a lewd manner despite of the fact that C refused and told him it was near the thigh, making it a private area. C finally threatened to report the harassment to the management level, and R gave permission for her to go change the stockings. C also alleged that R had asked her several times the color of her undergarment before this incident.

C lodged a complaint of sexual harassment with the EOC against R. The case was settled through conciliation after R agreed to issue a written apology.

Remarks:

The Sex Discrimination Ordinance makes it unlawful to sexually harass another person. Sexual harassment is any unwanted or uninvited sexual behavior which a reasonable person regards as offensive, humiliating, or intimidating. Such behavior can be verbal or in writing. In this case, the verbal remarks of R may amount to sexual harassment.

S23 of SDO

The Complainant (C) was a clerk. She alleged that her department manager [Respondent 1 (R1)] sexually harassed her by repeatedly sending her text messages with a sexual overtone and requesting her to go out with him for meals and dates. C claimed that R1's action were intimidating and sexual in nature.

C lodged a complaint of sexual harassment with the EOC against R1 and also the company (R2) for vicarious liability for R1's actions. The case was settled through conciliation after R1 agreed to provide monetary compensation equivalent to C's one-month's salary along with a letter expressing his regret and promise not to harass in the future. R2 undertook to encourage its staff to lodge a complaint to the management for any act of harassment and to strengthen its policy and practices in preventing sexual harassment in the workplace.

Remarks:

The Sex Discrimination Ordinance (SDO) makes it unlawful for an employee to sexually harass another employee. Sexual harassment is any unwanted or uninvited sexual behavior which a reasonable person regards as offensive, humiliating, or intimidating. Under the SDO, employers may be vicariously liable for the acts of sexual harassment committed by their employees in the course of employment, whether or not these were done with the employers' knowledge or approval, unless employers have taken reasonably practicable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.

S23 & S46 of SDO

The Complainant (C) worked for Respondent (R) as a technician. C alleged that she was sexually harassed by one of her colleagues in the workplace. C also alleged that R was vicariously liable for the colleague's sexually harassing acts.

C lodged a complaint of vicarious liability in sexual harassment with the EOC against R. The case was settled through conciliation after R agreed to (1) provide equal opportunities training for all employees; (2) remind all employees of the sexual harassment complaint mechanism; and (3) re-design the uniform for female mechanics staff.

Remarks:

The Sex Discrimination Ordinance makes it unlawful to sexually harass another person. Sexual harassment is any unwanted or uninvited sexual behavior which a reasonable person regards as offensive, humiliating, or intimidating. The employers may be vicariously liable for the acts of sexual harassment committed by their employees in the course of employment unless they have taken reasonably practicable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.

S23 of SDO

The Complainant (C) and the Respondent (R) were colleagues working in a restaurant. C alleged that R sexually harassed her by touching her breasts and commenting that they were big on one occasion, and making a sexually harassing verbal remark that no one would want to have sex with her on another occasion.

C lodged a complaint of sexual harassment with the EOC against R. The case was settled through conciliation after R agreed to issue an apology letter and to pay monetary compensation to C.

Remarks:

The Sex Discrimination Ordinance makes it unlawful to sexually harass another person. Sexual harassment is any unwanted or uninvited sexual behavior, including verbal remarks, which a reasonable person regards as offensive, humiliating, or intimidating.

S9 and S23 of SDO

The Complainant (C) was a corporate affairs manager at a trading company (R2) where she had worked for more than 10 years. C had to make overseas trips with her supervisor (R1) for business matters. During these trips R1 harassed her sexually by touching her thighs and arms and asked her to sit next to him. He even commented about the shape of her body in front of others. C claimed that she had complained to the senior manager who promised to transfer her to the subsidiary company in a similar position. However, she was offered a junior position with lesser pay.

C lodged a complaint with the EOC alleging R1 sexually harassing her and R2 of victimizing her by treating her less favourably (i.e. taking up a junior position with lesser pay after lodging a complaint against R1), and also for being vicariously liable for the unlawful acts of its employee. The case was settled through early conciliation after R1 agreed to offer a letter of apology and a reference letter. R2 also provided C with the regular service leaving benefits and an ex-gratia payment equal to three and a half years’salary.

Remarks:

The Sex Discrimination Ordinance makes it unlawful to sexually harass another person. Sexual harassment is any unwanted or uninvited sexual behavior which a reasonable person regards as offensive, humiliating or intimidating. The employers are responsible for preventing sexual harassment at workplace. They may be vicariously liable for the acts of sexual harassment committed by their employees in the course of employment unless they have taken reasonably practicable steps to prevent sexual harassment at workplace.

S23 of SDO

The Complainant, a primary school teacher, alleged that the Principal (Respondent 1) had sexually harassed her on various occasions from 1999 to 2004 by making sexual advances towards her. The incidents included making obscene jokes and comments about her dresses and appearance and once making close bodily contact with her. The Complainant turned down Respondent 1's sexual advances after which he began nitpicking her work with a view to forcing her to resign. She also alleged that the school (Respondent 2), as the Respondent's employer, should be held vicariously liable for its employee's sexual harassment acts for it did not take reasonably practicable steps to prevent sexually harassment in the workplace.

The parties agreed to resolve the complaints through early conciliation without going through a full investigation. Respondent 1 undertook in writing not to mention these complaints or make negative comments about the Complainant in future, including comments on the Complainant's performance. Respondent 2 undertook to issue an advisory letter to Respondent 1 advising him to improve his use of words in daily encounters with colleagues and to respect the feelings of his subordinates. Respondent 2 would also provide a reference letter to the Complainant and a designated supervisor to be the Complainant's referee when approached by prospective employers.

Remarks:

Under the Sex Discrimination Ordinance (SDO), it is sexual harassment if an employee makes an unwelcome sexual advance to a fellow worker, or engages in other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature in relation to the fellow worker. Conduct of a sexual nature includes making a statement of a sexual nature, whether it is made orally or in writing. Unwelcome verbal conduct of a sexual nature includes obscene jokes, sexually derogatory remarks, or persistent questioning about a person's sex life.

It can amount to victimization if an employer treats an employee less favourably by reason that the employee has alleged that another person has committed an act which would amount to a breach of the SDO.

S23 of SDO

The Complainant and the Respondent were former colleagues. The Complainant alleged that when they worked together as security guards in the same building, the Respondent had sexually harassed her on three occasions by touching her face and hands. In addition, she alleged that their employer should be vicariously liable for the sexual harassment act of the Respondent. In her view, the employer did not take reasonably practicable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the work place, such as promulgation of sexual harassment policy, provision of training on anti-sexual harassment to staff, etc.

The Respondent and the employer denied the allegations. The employer explained that an equal opportunities policy was given to the Respondent when he first joined the company in 2002 and produced the Respondent's acknowledgment receipt. However, the employer admitted that no special training was provided for its staff on the prevention of sexual harassment.

The complaints proceeded to conciliation and were resolved by the Respondent offering a written apology to the Complainant, and the employer reinstating the Complainant upon expiration of her current employment contract.

Remarks:

Under the Sex Discrimination Ordinance, it is unlawful to sexually harass a co-worker. Unwelcome sexual advance or conduct of a sexual nature made in circumstances in which a reasonable person would have anticipated that a person would be offended, humiliated or intimidated may amount to an act of sexual harassment. Employers are vicariously liable for the unlawful acts of its employees in the course of their employment unless they have taken reasonably practicable steps to prevent such acts in the workplace. Examples of these steps include promulgation of equal opportunities principles and anti-sexual harassment policy, periodic training of staff on the subject, and effective mechanism taken to address staff complaints.

Register Ref: SDO/5/April/2003

S23 of SDO

The Complainant (C), an employee of an advertising company, received a warning letter from her supervisor, the Respondent (R), for her habitually being late for work and disobeying instructions. She did not agree with the warning on disobedience and had an argument with R. In their argument, R made remarks to C that ‘We would not ask you to be a “chicken”.’ C felt humiliated because R linked her to a ‘chicken’, which meant a prostitute in slang language. She lodged a complaint of sexual harassment against R and her employer on the ground of its vicarious liability for the act of R.

Parties agreed to resolve their dispute by way of early conciliation. They reached an agreement in April 2003 whereby R verbally apologized to C in addition to sending an apology card (the content of which was not meant to be disclosed to a third party), and agreed to refrain from making personal remarks about C in future. Employer agreed not to victimize C as the result of the sexual harassment complaint.

Remarks:

Unwelcome remarks of a sexual nature in circumstances where a reasonable person would reasonably feel offended, humiliated or intimidated amount to sexual harassment under the law. Employers are vicariously liable for acts of sexual harassment committed by employees at the workplace. They are encouraged to provide employees with training on the prevention of sexual harassment in the workplace.

Register Ref: SDO/5/February/2003

S23 of SDO

The Complainant (C), secretary to the Manager of the Quality Control Department (R) of a manufacturing company, alleged that R sexually harassed her on various occasions including touching her hand and body, commenting on her figure when talking with colleagues, proposing to buy her a sexy night-gown, inviting her to lunch, etc. The sexual harassments started since her employment with the company in December 1999. C was still working in the company at the time of complaint. Statements of many witnesses corroborated C's version of the incidents. Some of the witnesses still worked at the company.

R denied the allegations. He said most of the alleged incidents did not happened. For incidents which had taken place, he explained that the contexts were not as alleged and they were not of a sexual nature. He contended that the physical environment of the office made it not possible for him to do some of the alleged acts.

The complaint was resolved in February 2003 whereby R donated $30,000 to the voluntary organizations nominated by C. He also provided C with a written apology for having touched her, gazed at her, invited her to lunch alone, etc. In addition, he undertook not to do such acts in future.

Remarks:

Sexual harassment can be one single incident or a series of on-going events of a sexual nature which according to a reasonable person would offend, humiliate or intimidate the victim.

Register Ref: SDO/5/February/2003

S23 of SDO

The Complainant (C), secretary to the Manager of the Quality Control Department (R) of a manufacturing company, alleged that R sexually harassed her on various occasions including touching her hand and body, commenting on her figure when talking with colleagues, proposing to buy her a sexy night-gown, inviting her to lunch, etc. The sexual harassments started since her employment with the company in December 1999. C was still working in the company at the time of complaint. Statements of many witnesses corroborated C's version of the incidents. Some of the witnesses still worked at the company.

R denied the allegations. He said most of the alleged incidents did not happened. For incidents which had taken place, he explained that the contexts were not as alleged and they were not of a sexual nature. He contended that the physical environment of the office made it not possible for him to do some of the alleged acts.

The complaint was resolved in February 2003 whereby R donated $30,000 to the voluntary organizations nominated by C. He also provided C with a written apology for having touched her, gazed at her, invited her to lunch alone, etc. In addition, he undertook not to do such acts in future.

Remarks:

Sexual harassment can be one single incident or a series of on-going events of a sexual nature which according to a reasonable person would offend, humiliate or intimidate the victim.

Register Ref: SDO/1/February/2003

S9 and S23 of SDO

The Complainant (C) was a part-time dental surgery assistant. She alleged that during her employment with a male dentist (R), R had sexually harassed her by touching her body on several occasions, showing her a nude picture of a female singer and commenting on her appearance. She confronted R and asked him not to touch her anymore. Shortly after the confrontation, she resigned. She also complained of victimization against R. She said R had refused to provide her with a good reference letter because she had confronted him.

R said that he had affection for C and claimed that he had not been aware that C did not like the physical contacts. If he had known, he would have avoided the contacts.

The complaints were resolved by early conciliation in February 2003. R provided C with a written apology for any injury to feeling caused and a reference letter stating that C's performance was satisfactory and that she was a competent dental surgery assistant. In addition, R provided monetary compensation of $16,000 to C.

Remarks:

If an employer engages in unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature in relation to an employee, the employee may claim sexual harassment against the employer. Further, if an employer treats the employee less favourably by reason that the latter has alleged unlawful discrimination or harassment against the employer, the employee may also claim victimization against the employer.

Register Ref: SDO/7/January/2003

S23and S46 of SDO

The Complainant (C) worked as a clerk in the Respondent law firm (R) for a few years. She alleged that her supervisor, the Legal Executive of R, had frequently touched her back since the early days when she joined the firm. She complained to R of sexual harassment. A partner advised her to tolerate the sexual harassment and not to make any complaints if she wanted to keep her job. C was later dismissed without being provided with any reason.

R denied the allegations but was willing to attempt early conciliation before going for a thorough investigation. The complaint was settled in January 2003 whereby R provided C with monetary compensation of $24,000.

Remarks:

It is unlawful to sexually harass a subordinate. It is also unlawful for an employer to treat an employee less favourably by reason that the employee had complained of sexual harassment or other unlawful acts under the law. Less favourable treatment includes dismissal. Employers are vicariously liable for discriminatory and unlawful acts done by employees in the course of his / her employment.

Register Ref: SDO/1/January/2003

S9 & S23 of SDO

The Complainant (C), who used to be an audit trainee of an accounting firm (R2), alleged that her supervisor (R1), who was a senior auditor, had touched her body and made remarks to her with sexual connotations on various occasions. She also complained against R2 that it should be held vicariously liable for R1's sexual harassment acts. C said that when she asked R1 not to sexually harass her again, R1 victimized her by immediately reporting to R2 that she had framed him and that she was incompetent with her work. On the same day, C complained to R2 of sexual harassment against R1. R2 dismissed C on the same day.

R2 denied the allegations. It explained that C was dismissed because of poor performance. The complaints against R2 were resolved by early conciliation in January 2003 whereby R2 provided a verbal explanation of C's dismissal and monetary compensation of $6,500, a month's salary.

After conciliating with R2, C withdrew the complaints against R1.

Remarks:

A person sexually harasses a fellow worker if he/she engages in unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature in relation to the fellow worker. Conduct of a sexual nature includes oral statements. A person victimizes another person if he/she treats the latter less favourably due to the latter alleging unlawful discrimination / harassment against that person.

Register Ref: SDO/2/December/2002

S23 of SDO

The Complainant (C) was a clerk of a construction company. Apart from her male supervisor and sole proprietor of the company (R), she was the only staff in the company. On one occasion, R asked her to download the photos he had taken by using the company's digital camera and save them in the company's computer. In the process, she found the photos contained three photos of a naked woman's buttocks and private parts. Feeling offended and humiliated, she resigned the following day.

R denied the allegation. He claimed that he had never taken or seen the photos. However, he was willing to attempt early conciliation with C. The complaint was settled in December 2002 whereby R provided C with HK$3,000. In addition, R provided C with an apology letter for any distress those photos had caused. R would also display the EOC's anti-sexual harassment publication materials in the company.

Remarks:

Obscene photos fall within the definition of conduct of a sexual nature and may offend and humiliate others exposed to them.

Register Ref: SDO/5/November/2002

S23 of SDO

The Complainant (C) was an apprentice in a printing company in which she worked for over four years. She alleged that one of the directors of the company (R) kissed her forehead when she was about to get off work on one Saturday. They happened to be alone when the incident took place.

R was willing to attempt early conciliation with C. The complaint was resolved in November 2002 with R providing C with a verbal apology for injuring C's feelings, a statement on her employment with R and monetary compensation of $36,000 (roughly equal to 6-month's salary of C). It was also agreed that C could leave the company with advance notice waived.

Remarks:

Conduct of a sexual nature includes unwelcome physical advance and verbal remarks, which according to a reasonable person would offend, humiliate or intimidate the victim. It could be a single incident or a series of events.

Register Ref: SDO/4/November/2002

S23 of SDO

The Complainant (C) worked as a security officer in a security company for a brief period. She alleged that her supervisor (R) sexually harassed her by touching her hands and staring at her breasts on several occasions.

R denied the allegations and claimed that the events were fabricated by C.

The complaint was resolved in November 2002. C agreed to settle the matter because R had demonstrated his sincerity by attending the conciliation meeting. She believed that R had learnt a lesson from this complaint and would not sexually harass other colleagues in future.

Remarks:

It is unlawful to sexually harass co-workers. Conduct of a sexual nature includes bodily touches and sometimes staring of a sexual nature.

Register Ref: SDO/2/November/2002

S23 and S46 of SDO

The Complainant (C), a female officer of the Respondent Company (R2), a security services company, served R2 from April 2000 to March 2002. C alleged that her male supervisor (R1) sexually harassed her in the course of his employment by touching her hands and staring at her breasts on several occasions during the period from November 2001 to March 2002. C also considered that R2, as the employer of R1, should be liable for the unlawful act allegedly done by R1 in the course of his employment.

R2 stated that it had not received any complaint from C against the alleged behaviour of R1 before it received C's statement of complaint from the EOC. R2 admitted that it had no policy on sexual harassment. C and R1 were in dispute about whether the alleged acts of sexual harassment had taken place. R2 was in dispute of its responsibility for the sexual harassment alleged against R1.

Parties agreed to settle their cases through conciliation in November 2002. C did not want to pursue the matter after she had expressed her concerns and dissatisfaction to R1. R2 undertook to develop a policy on sexual harassment and establish a complaint-handling procedures.

Remarks:

Employers should take reasonable and practicable steps to prevent sexual harassment. A set of procedures to handle complaints against discrimination and sexual harassment can help an employer to reduce its vicarious liability for the unlawful acts of its employees.

Register Ref: SDO/2/October/2002

S23 of SDO

The Complainant (C) worked as an administration officer of a shipping company. She had a loving relationship with the manager of the shipping division (R). After they broke up, R allegedly insulted her with remarks of a sexual nature on three occasions.

R denied the allegations and any loving relationship between them. He said they worked in different departments and he seldom talked to C.

The complaint was resolved in October 2002 whereby the parties undertook to communicate through email in the workplace in future. In the event of face-to-face communications, they would be conducted in the presence of a colleague.

Remarks:

It is unlawful for an employee to sexually harass a fellow employee. Conduct of a sexual nature includes oral statements of a sexual nature.

Register Ref: SDO/4/August/2002

S23 of SDO

The Complainant (C) underwent vocational training in a public organization. She alleged that her supervisor (R), a senior architect, sexually harassed her on various occasions during her one-year employment with the organization. The alleged acts included verbal remarks, unwelcome sexual advances and inappropriate bodily contacts.

R denied the allegations. He was of the view that C made these complaints following their heated argument over a work-related issue. On that occasion, R pointed out to C her weaknesses for the first time. The event resulted in C losing control of herself.

The complaint was resolved in August 2002 whereby R provided C with monetary compensation of $45,000 (roughly equals to 2-month's salary of C) and an apology (both verbal and written). Under their agreement, parties would keep the alleged incident confidential.

Remarks:

Under the anti-discrimination law, employment context include the relationship between employer-employee, supervisor-subordinate, principal-contractor, trainer-trainee relationship.

Register Ref: SDO/2/July/2002

S23and S46 of SDO

The Complainant (C) used to be a senior accountant of a computer software company (R). She alleged that the principal consultant of R had sexually harassed her on a few occasions. The incidents she raised included ordering to book a room in a hotel for them to share when they were having a business trip in Guangzhou (they did not share a room in the end); asking C to go to his room if she could not sleep on the same trip; making an analogy that C were a soldier and he were a horse on which C had to ride (C perceived the remark as having sexual connotation) and having unusual eye contact with her which made her feel uncomfortable. She alleged that R should be held vicariously liable for the principal consultant's sexual harassment. R did not have an anti-sexual harassment policy. Neither had it provided any relevant training to staff. C also complained of victimization. She alleged that after she had complained to the principal consultant of sexual harassment, she was dismissed.

R denied the allegations but was willing to attempt early conciliation with C. The complaints were resolved in July 2002 whereby R provided C with monetary compensation of $44,000, about two months' salary. It undertook not to make adverse comments on C's performance if approached by prospective employers. In addition, R undertook to formulate an anti-sexual harassment policy.

Remarks:

An employer may discharge its vicarious liability for an employee's sexual harassment/unlawful discriminatory acts if it can show that it has taken such steps as were reasonably practicable to prevent the employee from doing the alleged unlawful acts. "Reasonably practicable steps" include formulation of an anti-discrimination / sexual harassment policy and provision of training.

Register Ref: SDO/1/June/2002

S23 & 46 of SDO and S11 & S49 of DDO

The Complainant (C), who used to work as a Security Guard for the Respondent company (R2), a television broadcasting company, alleged that both R2 and her supervisor (R1) had discriminated against her on the ground of her physical disabilities. With problems in her legs, she could not stand for long hours. Without prior notice, she was transferred to a more strenuous post with a view of forcing her to resign. In addition, she complained against R2 that it should be held vicariously liable for the alleged sexual harassment of her by the security guards and the carpenters. The alleged sexual harassment included discussion of their sexual experiences in C's presence, changing clothes and going to toilets with the door opened when C was patrolling there, posting of nude posters, placing pornographic magazines in the workplace, discussing pornographic pages of newspapers and commented on the figures and attire of women, etc.

R1 disputed the allegation of constructive dismissal but agreed that no prior notice was given. The transfer was in response to a grievance raised by C. R2 contended that there were no obscene posters and magazines found at the workplace. An anti-sexual harassment and anti-discrimination policy was in place in the company.

The complaints were resolved in June 2002 by early conciliation whereby R1 provided C with a written apology for his failure to provide prior notice to C and to consult her before transfer. R2 agreed to introduce the anti-discrimination and anti-sexual harassment concept in its internal communication to staff. It also agreed to consider providing relevant training to staff.

Remarks:

It is unlawful to discriminate against a person on ground of his/her disability. Subjecting the person to detriment can be discriminatory. A person sexually harasses another person, if he/she, alone or together with other persons, engages in conduct of a sexual nature which creates a sexually hostile or intimidating working environment for the other person. Employers are vicariously liable for such sexually hostile working environment created by its employees.

Register Ref: SDO/1/May/2001

S9, S23 and S46 of SDO

The Complainant (C) joined a manufacturing company as an accounting clerk in 1995 and she was transferred to the design department in August 1997. The Respondent (R) was a director and an employee of the company.

The alleged sexual harassment started in September 1997 when there were only C and R in the design room. R touched C's thigh and told her not to shout as there were people outside the room. A few days later, R did the same despite C's objection. Since then, the harassment continued and became more serious and frequent, from once a week to almost every day in November and December 1997. Although with reduced frequency, the harassment continued throughout 1998. One day in January 1999, R indecently assaulted C and was pushed away.

Since then, R stopped harassing C. However, he often picked on C's work and commented on her designs negatively. On one occasion, he even made embarrassing remarks about C's wrinkles. C claimed that R kept on attacking her dignity and confidence with a view to force her to resign. In December 2000, a staff member informed C that she would be made redundant because R's daughter, who returned from overseas, would take over her post.

R was eager to settle the case with C before investigation. An early conciliation meeting was arranged in May 2001 and monetary compensation of $1,000,000 was paid to C.

Remarks:

It is unlawful for a director who is an employee to sexually harass his/her employee. Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advance, unwelcome request for sexual favours or other conduct of a sexual nature made in relation to a person (including verbal remarks). Treating the victim of sexual harassment less favourably after he/she complained about the harassment is an act of victimization, which is also unlawful under the law. Employers are vicariously liable for the unlawful act of its employee.

Register Ref: SDO/2/November/2002

S23 and S46 of SDO

The Complainant (C), a female officer of the Respondent Company (R2), a security services company, served R2 from April 2000 to March 2002. C alleged that her male supervisor (R1) sexually harassed her in the course of his employment by touching her hands and staring at her breasts on several occasions during the period from November 2001 to March 2002. C also considered that R2, as the employer of R1, should be liable for the unlawful act allegedly done by R1 in the course of his employment.

R2 stated that it had not received any complaint from C against the alleged behaviour of R1 before it received C's statement of complaint from the EOC. R2 admitted that it had no policy on sexual harassment. C and R1 were in dispute about whether the alleged acts of sexual harassment had taken place. R2 was in dispute of its responsibility for the sexual harassment alleged against R1.

Parties agreed to settle their cases through conciliation in November 2002. C did not want to pursue the matter after she had expressed her concerns and dissatisfaction to R1. R2 undertook to develop a policy on sexual harassment and establish a complaint-handling procedures.

Remarks:

Employers should take reasonable and practicable steps to prevent sexual harassment. A set of procedures to handle complaints against discrimination and sexual harassment can help an employer to reduce its vicarious liability for the unlawful acts of its employees.

Register Ref: SDO/2/October/2002

S23 of SDO

The Complainant (C) worked as an administration officer of a shipping company. She had a loving relationship with the manager of the shipping division (R). After they broke up, R allegedly insulted her with remarks of a sexual nature on three occasions.

R denied the allegations and any loving relationship between them. He said they worked in different departments and he seldom talked to C.

The complaint was resolved in October 2002 whereby the parties undertook to communicate through email in the workplace in future. In the event of face-to-face communications, they would be conducted in the presence of a colleague.

Remarks:

It is unlawful for an employee to sexually harass a fellow employee. Conduct of a sexual nature includes oral statements of a sexual nature.