‘Just show them your t..ts’: 4 shocking dismissals for sexist comments

Dismissals for sexist comments invariably steal news headlines as employers place more focus on fighting gender-based discrimination. In this article, we explore four dismissal cases form Australia and overseas that involved sexist comments. While some of these cases ended with the sexist employee receiving swift justice, others ended in decisions that may surprise you. 4 shocking dismissals is the tip of the iceberg, we careful.

Tradie fired for saying ‘women are hoes’ gets reinstated

A recent Canadian employment arbitration case involved a construction worker who was dismissed for making sexist comments in 2023. The worker, who was employed as a crane operator, had told a colleague that “women are hos” during a casual conversation in the lunchroom trailer.

This comment was overheard by two female crane operators in the room at the time. The worker was dismissed the same day for violating his employer’s workplace harassment policy.

Worker challenges sacking

The union representing the worker argued that the dismissal was disproportionate. It took issue with the investigation into the incident. The union noted that the employer did not interview the worker or relevant witnesses before deciding to sack him. It argued that the worker should have been given an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

The union admitted that the comment was inappropriate. However, it claimed that it was not directed at any individual and that the worker had no ill intent. The union noted that other cases involving similar comments resulted in suspensions or educational measures rather than dismissal.

Employer argues comment perpetuated stereotypes

The employer defended its decision to sack the worker, noting that the comment perpetuated harmful stereotypes and contributed to a hostile work environment. It stated that such comments were intolerable given the construction industry is male dominated.

The employer claimed that the swift dismissal of the worker demonstrated its commitment to protecting female employees from derogatory remarks.

“A stupid thing to say”: arbitrator makes decision

At the worker’s arbitration hearing, the arbitrator stated that “referring to women as ‘hoes’ was a stupid thing to say full stop.” However, it recognised that the comment was not directed at anyone in particular. It also found that the comment “does not rise to the level of the sort of sexist, racist and vile comments” seen in other cases.

The arbitrator said that the context of the comment was crucial. It found that the comment did not reflect a pattern of severe misconduct. It was also acknowledged that the employer had “a number of options” to address the comments other than sacking the worker. This included a “short suspension and an education component.”

“The need to change culture is critical, it does not however require the termination of an employee to achieve it,”

the arbitrator stated.

Ultimately, the arbitrator overturned the dismissal and substituted it with a three-day suspension. The worker was awarded compensation for lost wages and benefits.

Car dealer dismissed for telling colleague ‘just show them your t..ts”

This story was detailed in the Fair Work Commission case Mr Philip Parker v Garry Crick’s (Nambour) Pty Ltd as The Trustee for CRICK UNIT TRUST T/A Cricks Volkswagen [2017]. It involved Philip Parker, a business manager at Cricks Volkswagon in Maroochydore, Queensland. Mr Parker was fired by the dealership in September 2016 after a 21-year-old female colleague alleged he made inappropriate comments to her.

She alleged that Mr Parker had threatened her, stating, “If you ever call me that business guy, or that finance guy, I will backhand you. I don’t care if you are a girl.” She also claimed he made a second inappropriate comment following a customer interaction. The female employee alleged she was told “just show them your tits and you’ll be fine.”

Fair Work awards business manager over $7K

Mr Parker denied the allegations and subsequently made an unfair dismissal claim with the Fair Work Commission. In late 2017, the commission found there was a valid reason for Mr Parker’s dismissal. However, it found that he was “not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations” before his termination.

Mr Parker was subsequently awarded financial compensation of $7,459, which was the equivalent of three weeks’ wages. The Fair Work Commission however stopped short of reinstating him, feeling the nature of the allegations rendered it impractical.

Worker appeals Fair Work Decision

While he was provided financial compensation, Mr Parker was unhappy with the decision not to reinstate him. He therefore lodged an appeal with the Fair Work Commission, arguing that it had shown bias and made significant errors of fact.

He contended that “it is widely accepted in law that a complainant’s testimony cannot be solely relied upon as fact in a case of sexual harassment.” Mr Parker further argued that “in order for the testimony to be entered into evidence it generally must be reported immediately.” Mr Parker also suggested that the decision reflected broader issues of inequality in cases involving men versus women.

In addition, he contended that the calculation of his financial compensation was incorrect as it was determined based on three weeks of wages. He also disputed the commission’s decision to anonymise the complainant, who was referred to only as “Person A.”

Fair Work quashes appeal

At Mr Parker’s appeal hearing, the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission took issue with his argument. It stated that the prior ruling exhibited “no arguable case of bias.” It also stated that Mr Parker’s interpretation of the evidentiary standard was “wrong, and plainly so.”

The Full Bench highlighted that there is no requirement for corroboration of the complainant’s evidence in civil cases involving allegations of sexual harassment. With respect to Mr Parker’s compensation, the Full Bench stated that the three-week period was “not considered in a vacuum.” It stated that this timeline was based on an estimation of how long it would have taken for Mr Parker to be afforded a procedurally fair dismissal process.

The Full Bench did, however, state that the Fair Work Commissioner had erred in anonymising the complainant without consulting the parties involved. But it said that “the error did not bear on any of the Commissioner’s principal findings in the proceedings.” Mr Parker’s appeal of his unfair dismissal decision was therefore rejected by the Full Bench.

Engineer told to ‘get the coffees’ claims gender-based constructive dismissal

This story was detailed in the Fair Work Commission case Shivaani Polley v WSP Australia Pty Ltd – [2024]. It involved senior principal engineer Shivaani Polley, who had been employed by professional services firm WSP Australia for over 10 years. Ms Polley argued that she was forced to resign due to a hostile work environment fostered by a male colleague. 

Her role involved working closely with the technical director. Over time, Ms Polley alleged that the director’s behaviour towards her became increasingly hostile. She claimed that this was due to her being a woman. Ms Polley claimed that WSP Australia was predominantly male and that she felt isolated as one of the few female engineers.

She described the workplace culture as a “boys club,” where women were often marginalised and subjected to subtle forms of discrimination.

Engineer takes issue with coffee request

This hostility reached a tipping point forMs Polley during a client workshop in September 2023. She alleged the director asked her to “get the coffees” for the meeting in front of other senior colleagues. Ms Polley said the comment made her feel “intensely embarrassed.” She claimed the comment was an example of the sexist attitudes that had been normalised at WSP Australia.

Ms Polley subsequently filed a formal complaint with HR. She accused the director of gender-based discrimination and creating a psychologically unsafe work environment. She argued that this incident, coupled with a history of passive-aggressive behavior, amounted to bullying and harassment.

WSP Australia’s investigation into the incident concluded that the director’s request did not constitute gender-based discrimination. The company deemed that the director made the request as Ms Polley was not required to participate in the workshop.

Parties make arguments to Fair Work

To back up her claims of a hostile work environment, Ms Polley provided witness statements and a timeline of the alleged incidents to the Fair Work Commission. She also highlighted WSP Australia’s sexual harassment training, which provided examples of gender-based tasks as potential harassment. Ms Polley argued that this influenced her in concluding that she had suffered discrimination.

Meanwhile, WSP Australia argued to the Fair Work Commission that the coffee request was made purely out of convenience and not based on gender. The company presented evidence to show that the decision was a practical one made due to the meeting’s circumstances.

Fair Work rejects worker’s claim

The Fair Work Commission acknowledged that the director had considered making the coffee request to a male colleague. This colleague was also not presenting during the meeting, but he had opted to attend the meeting remotely.

The commission found that WSP Australia had conducted a reasonable investigation. It also noted that the company had taken steps to address any potential issues arising from it. The Fair Work Commission recognised that Ms Polley was the only woman in the meeting.

It stated that it is “understandable” that she believed the director made the coffee request due to her gender. However, it said that Ms Polley was “not aware at the time of the context of why he was asking her.”Ultimately, the Fair Work Commission concluded that the director’s actions did not constitute gender-based discrimination. Therefore, it was found that Ms Polley had not been constructively dismissed.

Sacked cop wanted to ‘tit grope’ female colleague during training exercise

In July 2024, a London police officer was sacked for making a series of misogynistic comments. The officer, PC Terrence Ellis, was subject to a Metropolitan Police hearing into his conduct. The hearing examined allegations made by two female officers who had interacted with him during their duties.

During the hearing, it was revealed that Mr Ellis was known by the nickname “Type Two Terry,” a reference within the Metropolitan Police for serious sexual assault allegations. This moniker, which was allegedly used in jest by probationary officers, was mentioned by Mr Ellis himself to one of the complainants.

One officer said that he seemingly took pride in this nickname. Mr Ellis denied this, however, saying that the nickname was an example of the dark humor within his police unit. He also told the hearing that he had previously been exonerated of two previous sexual harassment complaints.

Cop intended to grope female colleague, rated looks of another

Mr Ellis not only made sexist comments – he also wanted to act on them. The hearing heard that during an officer safety training exercise, which involved grappling with a would-be attacker on the floor, Mr Ellis allegedly scanned the room in hopes of being paired with someone he could “tit grope.”

The female complainant reported Mr Ellis’ comment and behaviour to her sergeant shortly after her shift. And the Metroplitan Police hearing deemed her testimony to be credible. Another complaint against Mr Ellis was that he had rated a female colleague as a “10, well a job [police] 10.”

He also kept a photograph of another policewoman on his phone, whom he criticised for having “duck pout” lips. Mr Ellis also told colleagues that he planned to join a gym near where he was stationed because it “had beautiful women.”

Cop dismissed for gross misconduct

The hearing ultimately found that Mr Ellis’s had breached Metropolitan Police standards, particularly in respect to authority, respect and courtesy. He was therefore dismissed without notice. He’s now prohibited from being hired by any police force in the UK.

Following the ruling, the Metroplitan Police chief superintendent called out Mr Ellis for his “disgusting behavior and language.” He also noted the “courage and professionalism” of officers who complained about his conduct.

Conclusion to: 4 shocking dismissals for sexist comments

A Whole New Approach can help you get the compensation you deserve. If you have been sexually harassed, bullied, faced discrimination or unfairly dismissed, call us today. Our team are Australia’s leading workplace mediators with over 20 years’ experience dealing with the Fair Work Commission and other bodies.

We’ve helped over 16,000 Australian workers take action via the Commission. We understand how the system works and are feared by employers for our track record helping workers stand up for their rights.

Call us today on 1800 333 666 for a free and confidential conversation about your situation.

Articles similar to: 4 shocking dismissals for sexist comments

Are you dismissed if your job is advertised?

Dismissed for stealing, 7 examples

How much is my unfair dismissal claim worth.