The case dates back to early 2021 when the microbiologist raised online harassment concerns after providing expert commentary during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Three-and-a-half years of doxing, death threats, a personal grievance, and a three-week Employment Court hearing later, Judge J.C. Holden found the university’s approach was “deficient in that it was reactive and not expansive enough”.
“It should be commended for the actions it did take, even though that was ultimately insufficient,” the decision read.
Employer versus employee
On the one hand, the university recognised Wiles’ contributions to the public discourse, “including repeatedly referencing it in the university’s 2020 annual report republishing articles”, for example.
On the other hand, the university claimed public commentary wasn’t part of the job so health and safety obligations wouldn’t apply.
One step further, while investigating Wiles’ safety concerns, the faculty dean said “it had come to the university’s attention” that she had conducted outside activities unbeknownst to her employer. These activities “may” not have been in line with the university’s policies. Ouch.
Although Judge Holden rejected Wiles’ claim that the university tried to restrict her academic freedom – long story – Wiles’ commentary was, in fact, part of the job. What’s more, the dean’s correspondence referring to “brand Siouxsie” and “a celebrity speaker” marked a shift in the university’s attitude – a “you’ll be punished for questioning the system” attitude, in my view.
“Despite promoting Associate Professor Wiles’ public work on Covid-19 matters, there is a sense in the correspondence it sent to her that the university considered that she bore some of the responsibility for the negative backlash that her work produced,” Judge Holden said.
“Rather than assisting Associate Professor Wiles to deal with the situation she was in, the correspondence from the university exacerbated her distress.”
Awarding $20,000 in general damages, Judge Holden found the university breached its health and safety contractual obligations, and duties of good faith to be a good employer.
The significance of the case
Firstly, the case revealed how behind we are in terms of health and safety in the digital age.
Sure, we have the police, NetSafe, and the Harmful Digital Communication Act 2021, which aims to deter, prevent, and lessen harmful digital communications. But, unless officials have vaults of gold and unlimited resources, the mechanisms are all bark and no bite when it comes to anonymous keyboard warriors.
The case also revealed a paradigm where management and employee relationships are often at odds when health and safety issues are concerned. In other words, employers should think twice before trying to contract out of their obligations by writing the odd social media policy.
A journalism case study
Take journalism, for example. The United Nations General Assembly, the UN Human Rights Council, and multiple conventions have cited targeted online gendered violence as a global problem, ultimately leading to the silencing of journalists. Eroding freedom of expression effectively undermines freedom of the press. No press, no democracy.
A 2021 Unesco global survey found that 73% of women journalists experienced online violence in the course of their work, including threats of physical violence (25%), and sexual violence (18%). As a result, 11% of journalists couldn’t work, 30% withdrew from online interaction, 38% made themselves less visible, 4% resigned, and 2% left journalism altogether.
The same study found journalists facing online violence felt unsupported by their employers. Only 25% reported the violence, and 9% were told to “grow a thicker skin” or “toughen up”. A further 2% were asked what they did to provoke the attack.
Instead, research suggests media employers have traditionally responded to online abuse by introducing policies that focus on brand reputation, placing the responsibility on journalists to either police their speech or mitigate the risk.
In a Columbia University study last year, for example, journalists described newsroom social media policies as unhelpfully ambiguous, unequally enforced, and “as worse than the harassment itself”.
Cue last year’s hearing where Wiles told the court: ”What’s been worse than the harassment has been dealing with the university. I fear for my employment.”
Still employed, let’s hope the reserved costs will cover almost four years of legal fees and a three-week hearing.
Then again, Wiles has the benefit of being among one of the first people internationally to have successfully taken on her employer for failure to mitigate online harm. Or so my internet algorithm tells me.
