Markets 
Queensland’s Justice Department has denied high-ranking bosses failed to properly address claims of sexual harassment by a marketing manager, saying alleged conduct by her colleague was in the context of them having a close friendship.
Marketing manager Sara Calle Herrera filed a claim under the Sexual Discrimination Act earlier this year, alleging she suffered from having her work arrangements changed, and being kicked off a key project after she made complaints to several managers.
In defence documents exclusively obtained by this masthead, the state denied Herrera’s claims, which included that she was slapped on the bottom by project manager Matthew Kleu. It said her claims were not contraventions of the Sexual Discrimination Act.
Herrera’s case named five people working in the department, while she was in the Births, Deaths and Marriages arm of the service. They include Kleu, registrar-general Marcus Leonard, project manager Bronwen McNeill, executive manager Robyn Farley-Sutton, and head of integrity and ethics Adam Fairhurst.
In disputing the claim about the slap, the state said Kleu claimed he was given an unexpected hug in a dramatic way by Herrera.
In the process of returning the hug, Kleu brought his arms up towards Herrera and, due to the positioning of both of them, he “accidentally and unintentionally brushed [Herrera’s] bottom in doing so”.
“[Herrera] and [Kleu] laughed upon this occurring,” defence documents state. When Herrera said words to the effect of “um, HR?”, Kleu apologised, saying “sorry, not intentional”.
The incident happened when they returned to the office after they went for coffee one work day, with Kleu claiming he had helped Herrera with a body corporate problem, according to the documents.
Herrera had claimed that Kleu smacked her bottom and 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.
Herrera claimed she suffered repeated sexual harassment by Kleu, including him allegedly touching her leg under a table for about 10 minutes while at work drinks. Herrera claimed she froze.
Kleu denied the allegations, saying they were untrue, and instead claimed they jointly pressed their feet together for intermittent periods of time, lasting a short duration on each occasion.
It was claimed in the defence documents that the conduct was “engaged in mutually”, and that Herrera at times initiated the conduct.
Herrera’s claim also centred on several messages Kleu had sent her, including one where 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. A couple of days later, he sent her a song called Secret Scream by The Black Queen at 9.26pm.
It was admitted by the state that Kleu had sent the songs and various messages to her outside work hours.
The department said Kleu did not make unwelcome sexual advances towards Herrera.
“[Herrera] and [Kleu] were engaged in a personal, mutual friendship which extended beyond that of a strictly professional working relationship,” documents state.
According to defence documents, Herrera sent Kleu a photograph taken by her of both of them on a social outing that depicted them in close physical contact.
The documents state the pair went for walks together to get coffee or to take Kleu’s dog for a walk, and there were “regular expressions of love, compliments and missing one another”.
The defence also relied on the fact there were “heart and laugh” emoji reactions between each other’s messages on Teams and WhatsApp.
“In all of the circumstances, a reasonable person would not have anticipated the possibility that [Kleu’s] conduct would cause [Herrera] to be offended, humiliated, or intimidated,” the documents state.
The communications by Kleu were “demonstrative of a close, personal friendship [Kleu] respected”, the documents stated. It was also denied that his messages were of a sexualised or romantic nature.
Herrera claimed she had been pushed off a project she was working on, which was the Donor Conception Information Register.
The department denied this claim, saying she was informed she would no longer be involved in discussions or work relating to the project and that was to ensure there was no unnecessary contact between her and Kleu.
According to the documents, Herrera’s skills were to be used on the project, but there was little capacity for her to take on the additional work. The project also fell outside her scope of normal duties.
The department also denied that one manager, Leonard, told her he would support her looking for another job, and that his words were misinterpreted by Herrera. He clarified that should she decide in the longer term she was no longer comfortable working at RBDM, he would support her.
In response to Herrera’s claims about her work arrangements being changed, the state said Kleu had been directed to stay home full time from December 16, 2024 to February 2, 2025. After February 2, Herrera was told he would work from home three days per week.
When Herrera sent an email explaining she felt isolated working from home, Leonard said he was open to her request to come into the office more, and asked her to arrange an appointment with her treating professional, and asked her to obtain a medical clearance confirming her wellness to work, according to the documents.
The department also confirmed Herrera’s claim she was told she could work from another office location when Kleu was in the office.
It was also admitted that Kleu was needed in the office one Monday, which was an office day for Herrera, and she had to swap her day because Leonard’s team were nominated for an award.
In relation to another manager, Farley-Sutton, the documents said she did not know Herrera was intending to make a complaint about sexual harassment, and did not know that Herrera believed that Kleu had sexually harassed her.
Another manager, McNeil, said she had asked Kleu about the foot contact, and he said he thought it was reciprocal contact.
The department admitted that some of the management handled the allegations as an informal complaint, but did so because Herrera did not want the complaint to be formal.
Herrera’s claims that she was suffered as a result of being removed from the project, her working arrangements being changed, and that she was prevented from working at all until obtaining medical clearance were denied by the government.
They also did not agree that she was denied access to various work opportunities or that she was victimised.
“The acts … were taken as reasonable management action so as to manage unnecessary interactions between [Kleu] and [Herrera] in the workplace, and/or, taken as being necessary to ensure the health, safety, and wellbeing of both [Herrera] and [Kleu],” the documents state.
The state said it did everything reasonable to prevent sexual harassment within the Queensland Public Service, including employees being subject to a Code of Conduct and applicable DJAG policies.
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.
Cloe Read is the crime and court reporter at Brisbane Times.Connect via X or email.From our partners
Read the full article here
