Skip to main content

Lorna Jane vindicated after two-year, $570,000 bullying case

Legal experts are urging businesses to train their staff in up-to-date social media policies this year, after activewear brand Lorna Jane won a two-year legal battle in November against a former employee who claimed the company was responsible for the psychiatric impacts of bullying at work.
Former Brisbane store manager Amy Robinson filed a legal claim against Lorna Jane in 2015, seeking $570,000 in damages. The former manager claimed 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 company came out swinging against the claims early on, 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.
Robinson also put forward two Facebook posts made by the learning and development manager, which she believed were being critical of her.
One of these involved the manager writing a status 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?”
In deciding the case in November 2016, Queensland District Court Judge Gregory Koppenol found Robinson “failed to prove each aspect of her claim”, which he subsequently dismissed.
He 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 right action.
“Once Lorna Jane became aware of the Facebook posts, [the manager] was immediately instructed to take them down (delete them), which she did. Lorna Jane also immediately (a) took disciplinary action against [her], (b) removed the DFO store from [her] control, and (c) arranged for Ms Robinson to report to [another staff member] and not to [the manager].
“In my view, those were the appropriate steps to take in response to Lorna Jane’s becoming aware of the offending Facebook posts,” Judge Koppenol said in the decision.

Social media policy and actions key

While the court’s decision also examined a number of other claims made by Robinson, including in relation to physical and psychiatric injuries, Director of Workplace Law Shane Koelmeyer says businesses can learn a lot from this case when reviewing their social media policies for 2018.
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.
“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 says.
Koelmeyer says small businesses can learn from the swift way Lorna Jane acted when it became aware of the Facebook posts, reflecting that if all staff are regularly trained about a company’s codes of conduct, it makes it much easier to enforce these the minute that concerns arise.
Social media platforms are always changing, so it’s critical companies regularly review whether their policies fit with how workers use social media.
“What is and isn’t acceptable is ever-changing in society, so it is important to keep reminding and training your staff,” he says.
Koelmeyer 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.
“Make sure that when it’s brought to your attention, you then act appropriately,” he says.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Unfair dismissal – harsh to dismiss, however reinstatement not appropriate

In the recent decision of  Paul Johnson v BHP Billiton Olympic Dam Corporation Pty Ltd  [2017] FWC 4097, Commissioner Hampton found that, although the employee had engaged in misconduct constituting a valid reason for dismissal, the dismissal was nevertheless harsh due to a number of mitigating factors. However, the Commissioner did not consider reinstatement appropriate because the employer had a rational basis for its loss of trust and confidence in the employee given the importance of the need for compliance with safety policy and the maintenance of appropriate discipline in connection with workplace health and safety matters. The employee was instead awarded compensation. The facts The employee was employed by BHPB from 24 May 2001 until his dismissal on 31 March 2017. At the time of his dismissal, the employee was a process specialist, responsible for a team of technicians looking after a flash furnace and other equipment in areas of a smelting facility at an und...
Post a Comment
Read more

Stop-bullying application rejected

An employee who claimed his new team leader micromanaged and bullied him has had his stop-bullying application rejected, after the Fair Work Commission found her behaviour "abrupt" but not repeated or unreasonable. The Bunnings Warehouse employee claimed that in May 2016 the new team leader asked him about his face – the left side of his face "droops" and he is unable to move his left arm – which he found "deeply disrespectful and hurtful". A few weeks later, the team leader on two occasions confronted him and questioned why he was in different sections of the store, he told the Commission, noting he believed he was being singled out and treated differently from colleagues. He contacted the store manager to discuss the issue but was told she was too busy to speak with him, and he subsequently took two days off because of work-related stress. The employee claimed that when he returned to work, the employer suspended him but didn't tell him wh...
Post a Comment
Read more