The decision in Mejia v Capital City Cafe‑Bar [2026] FedCFamC2G 468 (26 March 2026) is the first decision on the operation of s 527D of the Fair Work Act 2009.
The Court ordered compensation pursuant to s 527D arising from a single incident of sexual harassment involving a kiss to the mouth, reinforcing that the Respect@Work reforms have introduced a direct, compensable statutory pathway.
The Court accepted the conduct caused real harm and awarded damages to reflect the personal impact of the harassment, not just the existence of inappropriate behaviour. The focus was squarely on consequences, not intent or workplace informality.
Section 527D fundamentally changes the risk profile for employers. Sexual harassment is no longer confined to discrimination jurisdictions or policy‑based responses. It is a Fair Work Act (2009) contravention with financial consequences, capable of being enforced through federal workplace law processes.
Three Points Stand Out:
• compensation under the Fair Work Act 2009 is now a practical remedy, not a fallback option
• small and informal workplaces are squarely within scope
• failure to prevent or address sexual harassment can translate into direct monetary liability
For employers, the lesson is straightforward. Policies alone are not protective. Courts will assess whether preventative steps were real, active and effective and whether complaints were handled promptly and appropriately.
Sexual harassment risk now sits firmly at the intersection of employment law, compliance and financial exposure.
