Table of Contents
The Federal Court has rejected a Qantas flight attendant’s appeal to hold the airline accountable for alleged sexual harassment. It comes after she spent the last two decades pursuing legal action against the airline.
Central to the case was the deed the flight attendant signed in 2008 to receive a $115,000 settlement. She later regretted the decision and wanted to sue Qantas for damages. However, the deed outlined that she could not launch any future legal action against Qantas.
The flight attendant said that she had a psychiatric injury from the sexual harassment she experienced while at Qantas. She argued that this meant she did not have the mental capacity to sign the deed back in 2008.
However, the Federal Court ruled that the flight attendant did in fact have the mental capacity to sign the deed, so her case was dismissed.
Be careful what you sign
This case – Rossi v Qantas Airways Ltd [2024] – is a lesson for all employees that you need to be careful about what you sign at work. When your employer asks you to sign something, make sure you take the time to fully assess the document. Think about the risks involved and whether it will prevent you from certain actions in the future. It may be a good idea to discuss the possible implications with family or seek legal advice.
You do not want to be in a situation where you later on regret signing an agreement – because there is no going back. In the case of the flight attendant, she signed away her ability to hold her employer accountable for the sexual harassment she experienced. Weeks later, she regretted the decision.
It is especially critical that you do not sign an agreement with your employer if you are not in the best state of mind. For the flight attendant, she was experiencing the psychological effects of years of sexual harassment and discrimination while at Qantas.
In this article, we detail the harassment she suffered and how her case panned out in the Federal Court.
Qantas flight attendant’s sexual harassment case thrown out by Federal Court
Sara Rossi began working for Qantas in 1988 as a long-haul flight attendant. In 2000 she transitioned to a customer service manager role. Three years later, she applied for and was granted a voluntary redundancy.
Ms Rossi claimed she was the victim of multiple instances of sex discrimination and sexual harassment while working at Qantas. Her legal battle with Qantas began in 2007 when she initiated proceedings in the Victorian County Court over a workers’ compensation claim. Ms Rossi claimed that she had suffered a workplace injury due to the sex discrimination and sexual harassment she faced.
She told the court that these incidents took place between 1990 and 2003 and involved at least 17 individuals.
Sex discrimination claims
Ms Rossi told the Federal Court that she experienced 28 incidents involving sex discrimination. She alleged that male colleagues routinely criticised her and other women employed at Qantas, questioning their competence and suitability for promotions.
Specific incidents included a statement by her line manager, who said that single mothers juggling family responsibilities should not fly. Ms Rossi also frequently heard remarks from male colleagues undermining female staff. In several instances, she herself was criticised, mocked or subjected to formal complaints about her management style, often characterised as overly perfectionist or pedantic.
Ms Rossi also alleged systemic exclusion and disrespectful behavior. This included being ignored, addressed by diminutives instead of her name and subjected to aggressive conduct. On flights between 2001 and 2003, senior male pilots reportedly bypassed her during introductions, favouring male colleagues of lower rank.
Objected to provocative in-flight magazine
Additional complaints focus on incidents such as a lack of confidentiality regarding internal complaints made against her and Qantas’s alleged failure to address her concerns. For instance, during a training session in 2000, Ms Rossi voiced discomfort about the inclusion of a magazine containing female nudes as onboard reading material.
In response, she claims she was ridiculed by a manager and dismissed as being overly sensitive. Other allegations include her being labeled “militant” during a dispute in 2001 and being required to remain “personally vigilant” against drink spiking during overseas layovers.
Ms Rossi also cited an incident in 2002 where a flight attendant repeatedly used a homophobic slur against passengers despite her objections. She also noted her unsuccessful promotion application in 2002 and Qantas’s inadequate responses to her formal complaints in 2003 as evidence of discrimination.
Sexual harassment claims
Ms Rossi also alleged four instances of sexual harassment. One ongoing issue involved male crew members staring at her chest rather than her face when she was not wearing her uniform jacket. Another recurring problem was the distribution of the “Black & White” magazine containing provocative images, which continued despite her objections.
Specific incidents include her line manager making an inappropriate comment suggesting he “loved” her in the context of dismissing her concerns about workplace complaints. In another instance, during a flight from Adelaide to Sydney in 2003, the captain allegedly made an obscene gesture with a phone handset. Ms Rossi claimed he simulated an erect penis with the headset, “wiggled it around” then said to her “have we tried this?”
Diagnosed with psychiatric injury from sexual harassment
As part of the court proceedings, Ms Rossi was assessed by a psychiatrist. He diagnosed her as suffering from chronic adjustment disorder, marked by anxiety and depressed mood. The psychiatrist determined that Ms Rossi’s psychiatric injury had been caused by her time working at Qantas. He assessed that she did not have the capacity to work at the time nor in the future.
Worker signs deed for sexual harassment compensation, regrets decision
In October 2008, a settlement conference between Ms Rossi and Qantas was held. During this conference, Ms Rossi agreed to a compensation package worth $75,000, along with an additional $40,000 for legal costs. To receive the compensation for her sexual harassment, Ms Rossi was required to sign a deed.
The deed contained a term that released Qantas from all future legal action related to Ms Rossi’s employment with the company. After signing the deed, that night Ms Rossi contacted her psychiatrist who organised for her to attend a psychiatric facility. She, however, declined to be admitted to the facility.
Some weeks later, Ms Rossi phoned her lawyer to tell him that she did not want to accept Qantas’ settlement offer. However, the compensation had already been transferred into the law firm’s bank account. Ms Rossi still declined to accept the payment, so the law firm transferred it to the Supreme Court of Victoria to hold.
Attempted legal action against Qantas faced with challenges
Over the next 10 years, Ms Rossi contacted multiple law firms in an attempt to re-launch her sexual harassment legal action against Qantas. She eventually found a firm willing to take on her case. In 2018 Ms Rossi made a complaint of sex discrimination and disability discrimination against Qantas through the Australian Human Rights Commission. This complaint, however, was rejected as it had been made more than 12 months after the alleged discrimination by Qantas.
Takes case to Federal Court, argued lawyers made her sign deed
In September 2019, Ms Rossi took legal action against both Qantas and the law firm who represented her at the time that she signed the deed. She argued to the Federal Court that she had lacked the “lacked legal capacity to enter into the deed” as she was a “handicapped person.” Her handicap being her psychiatric injury caused by the sexual harassment she experienced while at Qantas.
Ms Rossi also made several allegations about her legal representation. She argued that she had signed the deed under duress “due to the unconscionable conduct” of her lawyer. She told the Court that she had been subject to “bullying, improper pressure and unsatisfactory professional conduct.”
“Unreliable and exaggerated”: Federal Court hears case
In 2020, the Federal Court dismissed Ms Rossi’s claims against her legal representation. The Court said that it was “not satisfied” that she had a “reasonably arguable case” against the law firm. It said that it “would be palpably unjust” for the firm to “address the main issues that would be in dispute in this case, so long after that event.”
In August 2023, the Federal Court heard Ms Rossi’s case to consider whether she was a “handicapped” person when she signed the deed. The Court found her evidence to support this claim “unreliable and exaggerated.” With respect to signing the settlement deed, the Court concluded that she “exhibited an understanding of the settlement process,” the advice of her lawyers and “key aspects of the settlement process.”
Ms Rossi’s case was therefore dismissed by the Federal Court.
Appeals court’s decision
Ms Rossi subsequently appealed the Federal Court’s decision. In November 2024, her case was again heard by the court, which had to consider:
“…a relatively narrow question as to whether Ms Rossi was a ‘handicapped person’ under the relevant Victorian County Court rules when she signed the deed,” the judge said.
Central to Ms Rossi’s case was her argument that she lacked the capacity to understand the settlement deed due to her mental state. She claimed that the Victorian County Court had incorrectly assessed her against the definition of a “handicapped person.” Ms Rossi also argued that the County Court had not adequately assessed the events in play when she signed the deed nor the evidence from medical experts.
Court disagrees with air hostess’s argument
To support her argument, Ms Rossi presented evidence from a psychiatrist. He testified that she was unable to understand the terms of the settlement at the time it was signed.
However, the Federal Court disagreed with Ms Rossi’s interpretation of the psychiatrist’s testimony. It pointed out that the psychiatrist “expressed a consistent position that Ms Rossi was able to understand the general nature and effect of the deed.”
The Court also said that the psychiatrists testified to Ms Rossi’s understanding of the advice of her lawyers, the nature of the deed, and the risks associated with signing it.
It was also highlighted that the psychiatrists stated that Ms Rossi was “able to clearly recall the details of her meetings with her lawyers and the matters they discussed with her.” The Court said that Ms Rossi’s understanding and capacity “constitutes significantly more than, as the appellant described it, ‘mere sentience’.”
Federal Court dismisses case
The Federal Court therefore determined that Ms Rossi had the mental capacity to sign the deed.
“Taking into account that the deed and the settlement involved no particular or unusual complexity, we consider … the findings amply support the inference that Rossi had the capacity to understand the settlement process she was engaging in,” the Federal Court said.
The Federal Court therefore dismissed Ms Rossi’s case and affirmed the validity of the 2008 settlement deed. This means that she will not be able to launch any sexual harassment legal action against Qantas. The Court also upheld the decision to grant Qantas liberty to apply for costs.
Have you faced sexual harassment at work?
Our team at A Whole New Approach is dedicated to fighting for victims of sexual harassment and discrimination. We have over two decades’ experience helping victims hold their perpetrators accountable.
We understand how the Fair Work Commission and court system work and can guide you through the process of taking action. We help workers in every state and territory and we offer a no win, no fee service.
Call us today on 1300 766 700 for a complimentary and confidential discussion.
