Robinson v Lorna Jane Pty Ltd [2017] QDC 266: Claim of Workplace Bullying Dismissed

Friday 19 January 2018 @ 10.01 a.m. | Industrial Law | Legal Research

In the outcome of the recent case of Robinson v Lorna Jane Pty Ltd [2017] QDC 266 (3 November 2017), legal experts are advising businesses to ensure staff are familiar with up-to-date social media policies.

Background

Active-wear brand Lorna Jane Pty Ltd (Lorna Jane) was recently successful in a two-year legal battle against a former employee who claimed the company was responsible for the psychiatric impacts of bullying at work.

In 2015 a former Brisbane store manager Amy Robinson (the Applicant) filed a legal claim against Lorna Jane seeking $570,000 in damages, claiming Lorna Jane was negligent and should be held responsible for her being bullied by a Learning and Development Manager at the company, which led to psychiatric illness and a loss of employment and future employability.

The Claims

Lorna Jane quickly reacted to the claims posting a later-deleted Facebook post in 2015 defending itself against the claims and saying it had been “very disappointed” by what had been reported in the media about the case.

The claims included that Robinson was bullied and called a variety of names while working at the company over a period of 20 weeks. The Applicant also put forward two Facebook posts made by the Learning and Development Manager, which she believed were being critical of her. One of quotes involved the manager writing on Facebook saying:

“What a day! It’s difficult to soar with the eagles when your [sic] surrounded by turkeys. Is it too late to pursue a different career?”

The Judgment

In handing down his judgment (and dismissing the Applicant’s claim) in November 2016, Judge Koppenol found Robinson at [para 279]:

“… failed to prove each aspect of her claim … ”

His Honour also found the Facebook posts had indeed been made by the manager, but that Lorna Jane should not be held liable for these for a range of reasons, including that the learning and development manager thought they were only visible on her personal Facebook page.

However, it was the process the company went through once being made aware of the posts that led to the judge finding the company had taken the correct action.

His Honour said at [para 115] of his decision:

“Once Lorna Jane became aware of the Facebook posts, McCarthy was immediately instructed to take them down (delete them), which she did. Lorna Jane also immediately (a) took disciplinary action against McCarthy, (b) removed the DFO store from McCarthy’s control, and (c) arranged for Ms Robinson to report to Perrin and not to McCarthy. In my view, those were the appropriate steps to take in response to Lorna Jane’s becoming aware of the offending Facebook posts.”

His Honour also noted the failure for the psychiatric illness claim [para 191]:

“… Ms Robinson failed to prove all of the applicable WCRA [Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (WCRA) (Reprint 6A)] requirements, on the balance of probabilities. That means that she failed to prove the essential element of causation—and as a result, failed to prove her claim.”

Company Social Media Policies

Shane Koelmeyer, a Director of Workplace Law, says businesses can learn a lot from this case when reviewing their social media policies. Koelmeyer says it was Lorna Jane’s actions in relation to its social media policy that convinced the court it was not liable for the Facebook posts in question. He said:

“Lorna Jane had strict policies in place, and once they became aware of it [posts that could have breached the policy], the worker was immediately instructed to delete them.”

Koelmeyer said that small businesses can ensure that staff are regularly trained about a company’s codes of conduct, which makes it much easier to enforce should concerns arise. He also believes Lorna Jane was able to win the case because it could demonstrate clear action once a complaint had been made about a staff member’s social media use.

TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products. Nothing on this website should be construed as legal advice and does not substitute for the advice of competent legal counsel.

Sources: