Boss hit twice in pocket for sex attack

WELLINGTON - An employer convicted of sexually attacking a woman has agreed to pay her compensation after she complained to the Human Rights Commission.

The woman complained to the commission that the man indecently assaulted and sexually harassed her during a job interview.

She alleged the man offered $50 to have sex with her, but forcefully pulled her towards him and kissed her on the lips.

The woman alleged this happened on two subsequent occasions, and that the man gave her a cheque for $50 and said it was "pocket money."

She complained to police and her employer was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, indecent assault.

A district court judge fined him $400, a quarter of which was to be paid to the woman as compensation.

The woman then complained to the commission, but the man said he would be subjected to "double jeopardy" if he was tried again.

But the Complaints Review Tribunal had previously confirmed that the Human Rights Act was compensatory and separate from other jurisdictions where the primary purpose was to punish offenders.

The commission decided the criminal conviction did not bar the woman from making a civil claim for compensation.

It did, however, take into account the compensation she was awarded in the district court.

All parties agreed the man would pay the woman $1500 for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings, and would attend a sexual harassment training programme.

The commission also received a separate complaint from another woman who said another employer had subjected her to unwelcome sexual comments and behaviour.

The woman alleged that employer had made several sexually suggestive comments during her job interview, and had stared at her breasts.

The employer invited the woman and her partner to drinks at a bar, where the woman complained he made further sexual comments.

She also said she overheard him ask her partner to have a drinking contest, with her as the prize for the night. The woman said she had no reasonable option but to resign her job.

Her employer admitted most of the allegations but denied he meant any harm by them and denied staring at her breasts.

He said he was too drunk at the bar to remember exactly what he said there.

The commissioners considered the events in the workplace did not meet the threshold under the act because the woman said they did not affect her.

But they decided the behaviour in the bar had resulted in the woman suffering.

The commission's complaints division concluded that even though this occurred outside the workplace, it would never have occurred but for their employment relationship.

The employer agreed to pay the woman $2250 for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings.

- NZPA