Qld manager sues state over executive’s alleged sexual harassment

High-ranking bosses within Queensland’s Justice Department have been implicated in a Federal Court case over claims they failed to protect a marketing manager who alleges she was sexually harassed by a member of the executive team and pushed off a key project.

Several people within the Births, Deaths and Marriages department failed to properly address the complaints of sexual harassment, according to a claim filed by Sara Calle Herrera under the Sex Discrimination Act.

In the claim, Herrera says she had been working on a project called the Donor Conception Information Register, which will store details of donor conception procedures in Queensland, as part of her role in communications and marketing. Herrera is also behind the popular social media account Brisbane City Cat.

She alleges she suffered repeated sexual harassment from project manager Matthew Kleu, including two physical incidents and repeated invitations to be alone with him, according to documents exclusively obtained by this masthead.

She says Kleu, who was a member of the executive management team, also sent sexualised messages to her after hours, including a link to a song titled Secret Scream, according to the claim.

Herrera lodged a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission over the handling of her case, alleging unlawful discrimination.

After unsuccessful conciliation, she filed a complaint in the Federal Court last month against the Queensland government, naming five people who worked in the department.

They include Kleu, Registrar-General Marcus Leonard, project manager Bronwen McNeill, executive manager Robyn Farley-Sutton, and head of integrity and ethics Adam Fairhurst.

Herrera is seeking compensation, including a written apology from the department.

In one incident, she says Kleu smacked her bottom while they were walking down an aisle at work towards her desk.

Herrera claims she immediately said in a half-joking manner words to the effect of: “Did you just touch my bum? Should I call HR?” To which Kleu laughed and did not apologise.

In another incident, he invited her out to drinks alone, but because she did not feel comfortable alone, she invited other colleagues to attend.

During the drinks, Kleu sat opposite her and allegedly touched her leg with his foot under the table repeatedly and constantly for about 10 minutes. Herrera claims she froze and did not reciprocate the touching.

In another incident, a day after she returned from work after being absent, he asked her to go for a walk with him. When she said she was busy, he responded that he was also busy but would “make the time”.

In her claim, Herrera details several messages from Kleu, which were sent over Teams and WhatsApp outside work hours.

In one message on WhatsApp, he told her he liked a particular band, stating “super zoomer core music – slow soft and vibey – I love the combination of romantic and sexualised lyrics” and sent her a link to a song by Cigarettes after Sex named Sweet, according to the claim.

She claims he again messaged her shortly after 8 o’clock one night. When she did not respond until the following day, he suggested she was “ghosting” him to send a strong message of rejection and disgust.

“A little harsh I thought, but sure,” the message read, according to documents.

Herrera did not acknowledge the song, but indicated she liked many genres of music depending on the mood. A couple of days later, he sent her a song called Secret Scream by The Black Queen at 9.26pm.

When Herrera did not reply, he sent her a message asking if she was OK, saying it bothered him, and that he could sense vibes of distance, withdrawal and disinterest.

Herrera says she made multiple complaints about Kleu to various management figures.

She claims that after she raised the complaints, the department repeatedly failed her, including one manager, Leonard, who told her he would support her if she looked for another job.

Management also directed her to work from home on Thursdays and Fridays to accommodate Kleu being in the office on those days, she says.

When she said she felt isolated working from home, she was directed to leave work and obtain medical clearance before returning.

It was suggested to Herrera she could work from a different office location instead of her work-from-home days, according to the claim.

In one instance, she claims she was told by Leonard to work from home on one of her office days because Kleu had been nominated for a leadership award, and so he could be present for it.

She says she was also removed from the Donor Conception Information Register project because Kleu was part of it.

When Herrera asked whether one of her managers, McNeill, had spoken with Kleu about the alleged smack, Herrera claims McNeill said she had spoken with him, but did not mention the incident because she “thought it was too much”.

McNeill told Herrera she should have been “more assertive”, and that she was “too nice and friendly”, according to the claim.

Herrera claims she was also reprimanded and threatened with disciplinary action for raising a de-identified scenario during human rights training. According to the claim, it was alleged by Fairhurst that there were “confidentiality breaches” by Herrera.

Herrera says she explained that she was told by the Ethical Standards Unit that she could raise the issue, as long as it was de-identified. Fairhurst confirmed he knew of the conversation, but because some people at the training knew what she was referring to, the matter was not sufficiently de-identified.

Herrera claims she was told that normally in those circumstances, an employee would have been sent a warning letter, and if their behaviour did not stop, they would be immediately terminated. He explained he was doing her a favour by speaking with her, and that she would not be terminated.

Herrera says she left the meeting in tears.

She claims management failed to tell her the allegations constituted sexual harassment, and instead handled her complaints as informal.

Herrera says she suffered by being removed from a key project and directed to change her working arrangements against her wishes, and by being prevented from working at all until obtaining medical clearance. She alleges she experienced stress, distress, humiliation, isolation, and reputational damage.

The government is yet to file its defence, and the case remains before the Federal Court.

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.