Table of Contents
Under the Fair Work Act 2009, victimisation occurs when an employee is treated unfairly by their employer due to making a complaint. If you have experienced this, you can make a general protections claim with the Fair Work Commission to hold your employer to account and seek compensation.
You can read more about victimisation and the options available to take legal action in our comprehensive article. In this article, however, we look at four recent victimisation cases that made global news headlines.
In one case, an immuno-compromised worker who was coughed on by her boss was awarded AU$52,000 for being victimised. While another was awarded AU$15,000 for being dismissed due to making a complaint about misandry.
-
Black Footballer Victimised by Own Club After Raising Racism Concerns
Let’s start with this story, which made the media rounds in January 2025. It involved Scottish footballer Rico Quitongo, who played for Airdrieonians FC. The team plays in the Scottish Championship – the nation’s second division football league.
The 25-year-old Mr Quitongo filed legal action against the club under the UK’s Equality Act, alleging that he had been victimised. He claimed that the victimisation came after he complained about the racial taunts he received from a fan of his own club.
Mr Quitongo, whose mother is Scottish and father is Angolan, said that he was racially abused by the fan during a match in Glasgow on 11 September 2021. He told a UK employment tribunal that he had not heard the abuse himself. Rather, he learnt about it via a message in a WhatsApp group from a spectator who claimed to have heard it. The spectator said that the racial abuse came from an Airdrieonians FC fan.
Club Said Racism was Not Proven, ‘Vindicating’ its Fans
Airdrieonians FC investigated the allegation. However, the club concluded that there was no way to be sure that the abuse took place. In October 2021, the club’s board of directors posted a message on its website saying that it had investigated the incident. However, they said the club had “exhausted all possible options” and concluded that “there is insufficient evidence to take further action.”
The directors also said that the club had “a zero-tolerance approach towards racism.” But they also said it was “important to ensure that our club and supporters as a whole, were not unfairly accused of using racist language.” They went on to conclude that “we believe that this process has been a vindication.”
Mr Quitongo was not happy with this outcome and declined to sign the club’s statement. Subsequently, he was placed on paid leave.
‘Hung out to dry’: Player Took Legal Action for Victimisation
An initial employment tribunal dismissed Mr Quitongo’s claims of racial harassment and victimisation in 2022. However, he appealed the decision with the UK’s Employment Appeal Tribunal. It found that the original ruling had “erred in law” and that Mr Quitongo had been victimised by the club.
The tribunal said the club victimised Mr Quitongo by ceasing communication with his agent. This took place after the agent had sent the club messages saying that Mr Quitongo had been “hung out to dry” and “called a liar by a director who is trying to sweep this under the carpet.” The agent also told the club that Mr Quitongo had been “suspended for drawing the allegation of racial abuse to the attention of the [club].”
The tribunal concluded that “the act of cutting off communications with [Mr Quitongo’s] agent was an act of victimisation because of the contents of the text.” It therefore ruled that Airdrieonians FC would need to pay him compensation – the amount of which would be determined at a later date.
The tribunal also ordered a new hearing to reconsider a claim of racial harassment. This was in respect to the club’s chairman saying that Mr Quitongo was “seeking publicity” by reporting the alleged abuse. The tribunal ruled that the original hearing failed to address the specifics of the chairman’s remarks.
-
Worker Victimised After Boss Coughs in Her Face at Height of Covid
This story from the UK made the news in July 2024. It involved an accounts assistant, only known as Ms D Philpott, who worked for Cawdor Cars in Newcastle Emlyn, Wales. She had started working there in 2017 and resigned in June 2020. The incident that eventually led her to claim victimisation took place on 17 March 2020, during the UK’s Covid lockdown.
A UK employment tribunal heard how Ms Philpott had psoriatic arthritis and an autoimmune condition, making her particularly vulnerable to Covid. As such, she had asked her coworkers to maintain social distancing.
However, the owner of Cawdor Cars, Kevin Davies, told her that she was “being ridiculous.” He then “coughed in her direction deliberately and loudly, commenting that she was being ridiculous, with an intention to ridicule and intimidate her,” the tribunal noted.
Ms Philpott told the tribunal that her boss “knew I had no immune protection because of the medication I had to take, and he deliberately coughed in my face.” She said the incident left her “shaking” and a “nervous wreck.”
Worker was Victimised After Making Complaint
Ms Philpott subsequently reported the incident to Cawdor Cars’ management and the police. The tribunal heard how she was victimised following her complaint. It noted that it led to her being viewed as “a thorn in the respondents’ collective side.” This was reflected in actions such as requests for her to return work equipment despite shielding at home and discussions about potential redundancies.
In May 2020, Ms Philpott raised concerns about her workload and unpaid remuneration. She described these issues as part of a “continuing theme” of unfair treatment. By June 2020, she believed the company’s response to her complaints was intended to make her resign.
Worker Wins Huge Payout for Victimisation
The tribunal ruled that Mr Davies’ actions constituted victimisation and that the treatment Ms Philpott endured played a “major and significant” role in her decision to resign. The tribunal found that her resignation amounted to constructive dismissal, and she was also subjected to disability discrimination.
Mr Davies and Cawdor Cars were ordered to pay Ms Philpott a total of £26,438.84 (around $52,000 Australian).
Related: Forced To Resign Due To Bullying
-
Worker Victimised for Complaining About Misandry Wins Payout
This story from Ireland made the rounds in March 2024. It involved a helpdesk worker for global e-commerce tech company Shopify, who claimed he was victimised and targeted for redundancy. The worker, Mark Wells, was made redundant in July 2022 along with around 10 per cent of Shopify’s global workforce.
However, he told an Irish employment tribunal that he was the only person in his team to be made redundant. Mr Wells argued he had been victimised for complaining about the “misandry” – or anti-male hate – he had suffered.
‘Arrogant Arsehole’: Worker Delt with Customer From Hell
Mr Wells told the tribunal that he had been abused by a customer over the phone in February 2021. He claimed that the customer abused him based on his gender. This included cursing at him and making “wild accusations” that he had committed domestic abuse.
The customer also sent an email to Shopify that featured “racist comments, personal insults and sexual harassment” directed at Mr Wells. The customer wrote that he was “so full of himself he flaunts it.” They then went on to say of Mr Wells; “after years of domestic violence I would presume this guy is beating up on his partner.”
But the customer was not done with just sending that email. They later sent another, in which they called Mr Wells an “arrogant arsehole” and a “loser.”
Shopify ‘Blamed Me’: Company Cosies Up to Abusive Customer
The key reason Mr Wells lodged his claim with the Irish tribunal is that Shopify decided to take the customer’s side. He told the tribunal that the company “blamed me” and “appeased” the customer. This was despite the fact that the customer had “abused, bullied, sexually harassed [and] threatened” Mr Wells.
Shopify initially rejected, then later accepted, his complaint about the customer. However, Mr Wells felt that he had been “fobbed off.” This was because Shopify simply said that it was good he had “made a stand” and said the company would “learn from the experience.”
Worker Said He Copped Misandry from Female Coworkers, was Victimised
Mr Well’s complaint against Shopify also alleged that he had experienced “misandry” and discrimination from six female coworkers. He launched another complaint with the company, alleging that he “was treated differently by the [coworkers] by being male.” Mr Wells said that in comparison, women subjected to misogyny “would have been supported in a totally different way.”
In response to this, Mr Well’s manager initiated a disciplinary action against him. This action was eventually stopped when Shopify assessed his complaint, which it ultimately rejected. Mr Wells claimed that he had been victimised for making this complaint, as the next day, he was made redundant. He told the Irish tribunal that he was never given any explanation of why he was chosen to be laid off.
Worker Wins $AU15,000 in Compensation for Victimisation
At the tribunal hearing, Shopify’s legal team said that Mr Well’s redundancy was “unfortunate.” However, they said that the company’s decision to cull him “had nothing to do with his grievance” about misandry. Their view was that he was simply “no longer required by the business” given the “significant economic retraction” experienced in the ICT sector.
The tribunal noted that Shopify did not offer any witnesses to take the stand at the hearing to rebut Mr Well’s claims, which it found as “credible.” It ultimately ruled that he had been victimised “by his dismissal” – specifically for raising his second complaint about misandry. Shopify was found to have violated the Irish Employment Equality Act 1998.
The tribunal therefore ordered the company to pay Mr Wells €10,000 (around $15,000 Australian) in compensation.
Related: What Is A Sham Redundancy?
-
Disabled Cop Victimised by Police Force
In September 2024, multiple news outlets reported the story of a UK police officer who was victimised for her post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). L Darby, whose first name was not made public, had been employed by the Lancashire Police Force since 2003. In 2019, she had been diagnosed with PTSD, anxiety and depression. The Police Force knew about these diagnoses.
Ms Darby had taken an almost seven-year career break starting in 2010. She also was placed on sick leave for over a year in August 2017 due to a domestic violence incident. An occupational health assessment determined that Ms Darby was unfit for frontline policing. It stated that she had “by no means recovered” from her PTSD.
Police Force Denied Disability Discrimination
However, despite these findings, managers at the Police Force struggled to work out how they should accommodate Ms Darby’s PTSD. They grew frustrated with how her condition affected her work. In November 2020, she was given a written warning about her unsatisfactory performance and attendance.
Ms Darby, however, complained to the Police Force that this letter discriminated against her, based on her PTSD. Her employer decided to repeal the letter. However, it did not agree with Ms Darby that she had faced discrimination due to her disability. It also denied that the Police Force had not made reasonable adjustments to accommodate her disability.
In December 2021, Ms Darby was deemed unfit to continue working as a police officer. She subsequently applied for and was granted ill-health early retirement. However, given the Police Force’s denials about her claims of discrimination, she lodged a claim with a UK employment tribunal.
Tribunal Said Victimisation Claim was ‘Well-Founded’
In 2024, Ms Darby’s case was heard by the Manchester Employment Tribunal. She argued to the tribunal that she had been victimised and treated unfairly by the Police Force due to her disability. Ms Darby also claimed her employer had failed to make reasonable adjustments for her PTSD.
The tribunal found that Lancashire Police Force had failed to meet its obligations under the UK’s Equality Act. Specifically, it had not implemented reasonable adjustments and by subjecting Ms Darby to unfavourable treatment due to her disability.
The tribunal specifically criticised the force’s decision to subject Ms Darby to a performance and attendance procedure. It noted that these actions stemmed from her disability-related absences and underperformance, making them discriminatory under the Equality Act.
The tribunal therefore found that Ms Darby’s claim of unfair treatment and victimisation due to her disability was “well-founded.” It said that her compensation would be determined at a later date.
Have you Been Victimised at Work?
If you have been treated unfairly due to making a complaint at work, you have options to hold your employer accountable. Our team at A Whole New Approach can help you make a general protections claim with the Fair Work Commission.
In addition to assisting with general protections claims, we also provide support to workers experiencing workplace bullying. Our experienced industrial relations advisors can guide you through the process and help you take action.
In Australia, it is unlawful for an employer to dismiss or treat you unfairly if you make a legitimate complaint about your working conditions. We can help you make the best case possible with the Fair Work Commission and get the compensation you deserve.
Our team operates in all states and territories, and we have a proven track record helping over 16,000 workers take action via the Fair Work Commission.
Call us today on 1300 766 700for a free and private conversation about your situation, or contact us here for more information.
