A woman has lost a bid for compensation after she was sacked by a Catholic Church social services organisation for having too many sexual partners.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The woman filed the lawsuit against Brisbane-based Centacare last October claiming she sexually discriminated against, as well as accusing the centre of breach of contract, the Australian Financial Review reports.
The woman was sacked for gross misconduct and bringing the centre into disrepute in August 2013 after being told her "polyamorous" lifestyle was against the ethics and moral teachings of the Catholic Church.
Polyamory is defined as having multiple sexual relationships or partners at the same time, with the consent of all people involved.
The woman worked at the centre from August 2007, and had been promoted to the role of clinical practice co-ordinator in its family support division in 2009.
The centre discovered the woman's lifestyle when her contact details as a "poly-friendly" counsellor were published on a website for the Brisbane Poly Group, a site for people involved or interested in varied alternatives to monogamy.
The woman was confronted by her managers on August 5, 2013 with questions as to why her name was at the bottom of a printed list of the group's members and whether she attended for professional or personal reasons, according to the judgment by Judge Salvatore Vasta of the Federal Circuit Court on February 11.
The co-ordinator initially lodged a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission, alleging discrimination because of her sexual orientation.
But after her claim was dismissed by an AHRC delegate, she took her legal battle to court adding she should have been given 12 months rather than five weeks of notice, that there was no valid reason to sack her and she was not afforded procedural fairness in the termination process.
Justice Salvatore Vasta dismissed the co-ordinator's appeal on the basis it had no reasonable prospects of success. He found being polyamorous was "sexual behaviour" and not sexual orientation, which involved something far more than how one behaved sexually.
"Sexual orientation is how one is, rather than how one manifests that state of being. The manifestation of that state of being can take many forms," Justice Vasta said.
He rejected the woman's argument that "sexual behaviour" was a subset of sexually orientation saying it could lead to absurd results.
"If the contention of the applicant were correct, many people whose sexual activity might label them as sado-masochists, coprophiliacs or urophiliacs could claim that such is more than mere behaviour; it is in fact their very sexual orientation," Justice Vasta said.
"If the contention were correct, then the illegal activities of paedophilia and necrophilia may have the protection of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984."
Justice Vasta also said while he lacked jurisdiction to determine the woman's claim concerning reasonable notice, it did not give him any pleasure to rule this way.
No matter what the merits or the probability of success on the substantive claim, she should be allowed to at least ventilate her grievance, he said.
