The woman claimed he was watching her through a hole in the toilet wall.
The woman claimed he was watching her through a hole in the toilet wall.
A female workshop employee waited on the toilet with her phone in hand for an eye to appear on the other side of a hole in the cubicle wall. When that unwanted iris did appear she tried unsuccessfully to snap a photo of the man so she could confront the peeping Tom.
It was the final straw in what the woman claimed was a string of sexually harassing behaviour from colleague Tarun Kumar over the nearly two years she worked at the workshop.
The woman took her case to the Human Rights Review Tribunal which has now found in her favour and ruled Kumar must pay her $29,000 in compensation and just shy of $3000 in lost wages.
A decision released today describes how Kumar constantly commented on her clothes and appearance as well as her single relationship status. He would sing love songs in Hindi and call her “princess” as well as text her inappropriate messages or stand too close to her at work.
On one occasion the woman told the tribunal he came into her office, pushed a ring on to her finger and touched her shoulder, waist and thigh. When she told him to stop he reportedly said, “What you think you are, a princess? My wife is more beautiful than you.”
The woman reported the incident to the workshop’s owner who instated a rule that no one should enter her office while she was inside it - despite this being where the kettle as well as coffee and tea for the whole workshop were housed.
The Human Rights Review Tribunal heard the woman's case in 2020. Photo / Jeremy Wilkinson
Later that evening she received a text from Kumar saying simply: “I’m sorry.”
However, two weeks after that, another employee told the woman that Kumar had been watching her use the bathroom through a hole in the cubicle wall. The following day she went to the toilet and waited to see if Kumar would try and look through and when he did she tried unsuccessfully to take a photo of him before confronting him.
She said that he responded by shouting at her in front of the other employees and denying looking through the hole which he said had been there a long time.
The woman told the workshop owner as well as the landlord of the building and never came back to work. She reported the incident to police who referred her to a counsellor whom she told that her whole life was falling apart and that she was struggling financially after leaving her job.
Kumar outright denies the toilet incident occurred at all and claims the other behaviour was taken out of context and was not of a sexual nature.
A video he allegedly shared to the woman of another woman’s bare buttocks as well as a text he allegedly sent her saying “why u driving baby” had been deleted from his phone by the time the Human Rights Review Tribunal heard the woman’s complaint in 2020, some two years after she lodged it.
The woman also attempted to bring the business in as a second defendant but it went into liquidation citing pending litigation from a former employee as well as difficulty surviving in a competitive industry as reasons for folding the business.
The tribunal said that on the whole it found the woman’s evidence at the hearing to be more probable and plausible whereas Kumar’s was at times implausible and inconsistent.
Kumar submitted that the woman had taken “a number of actual events or occurrences that were innocent and woven them into a tissue of lies” and that she was motivated by financial or immigration concerns though the tribunal found no evidence to support this assertion.
In its ruling, the tribunal said there was a significant power imbalance with Kumar being a friend of the owner, was more senior than the woman and also older than her.
“The office incident and the peeping incident are undoubtedly sexual in nature, and the multiple touches of [the woman’s] body in the office, again within the context of a power imbalance, was significant,” the tribunal said in its decision.
“The peeping incident is sexual in nature and particularly humiliating, given the expectation of privacy in the toilet and again the power imbalance and the context.
“These two final incidents were the final straw for [the woman] after almost two years of less overt behaviour of a sexual nature and resulted in her resignation.”
The tribunal found that the day-to-day behaviour was at the lower end of sexual harassment but were made more serious by the power imbalance and frequency.
“[The woman] was in an all-male workplace, with an unsupportive employer, reliant on the job for income and required to put up with behaviour of a sexual nature to keep earning an income.
“A workplace where an individual feels she must simply accept behaviour of a sexual nature is a workplace where that employee is facing detriment. It is not a comfortable, appropriate work environment…”
The director of Human Rights Proceedings, Michael Timmons, represented the woman before the tribunal and told NZME on behalf of his client that the ruling was a big win for sexual harassment claims.
“Compared to overseas the damages awarded for these kinds of cases can be comparatively low, so it’s good to see the tribunal compensating at the higher end,” he said.
“Although it’s taken a long time for it to come out, she’s extremely happy to be vindicated and hopes that the decision will shine a light on this type of behaviour in the workplace.”
Kumar didn’t respond to a request for comment through his counsel before publication.
Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.
