Tick the Box, Face the Bill: The Star's $50,000 Training Lesson

Policies. Codes of conduct. Mandatory online training every two years. On paper, The Star Entertainment Group had a sexual harassment framework many employers would envy. What it did not have was any assurance that employees were actually engaging with it. That gap cost the casino operator nearly $50,000 in a decision handed down by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission on 31 January 2026.

What Happened

Olivia Loquias was 21 years old and working as a games dealer at The Star's Brisbane casino when her Gaming Area Manager, John Dwyer, began sexually harassing her. Over approximately six months from September 2020, Dwyer made explicit comments about her body and singlet, pinched her arm on the casino floor, touched her face and told her she would look ugly if she frowned, and when she came to him to report harassment by other managers, told her he "would have done a lot worse" to her.

The harassment came to a head on 5 March 2021 at a colleague's 21st birthday party in Fortitude Valley, where Dwyer groped the Complainant in the street and made further unwanted comments. He was charged with assault and pleaded guilty before the Magistrates Court. His employment at The Star was subsequently terminated.

The Employer's Defence

Under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), an employer is vicariously liable for sexual harassment by a worker that occurs in the course of work. The defence available is proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the employer took reasonable steps to prevent the conduct.

The Star's case was substantial. It pointed to a detailed Equal Employment Opportunity Policy, a Code of Conduct, a Grievance Policy and a Misconduct and Discipline Policy. All employees completed mandatory online training modules, "Do the Right Thing" and "Code of Conduct," every two years. Following a prior substantiated harassment complaint against Dwyer in 2016, The Star gave him a final warning and required additional training.

The Commission accepted the content of the training was appropriate. It communicated clearly that sexual harassment is unlawful, that it will not be tolerated, and that employers can be held vicariously liable. On substance, The Star had done what was expected. But substance was only half the story.

The Training Problem: How, Not Just What

The fatal flaw was not what the training said. It was how employees were completing it. When cross-examined, Dwyer described how managers approached the mandatory modules:

"As managers, we just had to do it during the course of our job. I mean, we still had to run the pit. Sometimes you're busy and you're under the pump... people just skip through it, yes."

He also confirmed that incorrect quiz answers could simply be changed without reading the material, removing any genuine incentive to engage with the content.

Industrial Commissioner Power was unequivocal. Genuine training cannot reasonably occur when employees are completing online modules while simultaneously managing their work duties. The multi-tasking approach, described by Dwyer as standard practice across managers and staff alike, meant the training was being completed in name only. The Commission distinguished this from prior cases that had accepted online training as a reasonable step, noting those cases involved no evidence of concurrent multi-tasking.

A Higher Bar for High-Risk Employees

The Commission went further. Even if the training delivery had been adequate generally, it was not adequate for Dwyer specifically. After the 2016 complaint and final warning, he was returned to the same two-year training cycle as everyone else. The Commission found that an employee already found to have breached sexual harassment policies required a tailored and heightened response. Annual training, for example, would not have been onerous, and a more frequent reminder of his obligations and the precarious nature of his employment would likely have had a meaningful deterrent effect. By treating Dwyer the same as the rest of the workforce, The Star failed to address the elevated risk his continued employment presented.

Where the Line Was Drawn

The Commission did find in The Star's favour on one significant point. The conduct at the Valley birthday party was held not to have occurred "in the course of work." The event was entirely personal, unconnected to The Star, not organised or authorised by the employer, and attendance was neither expected nor required. Knowing someone through work, the Commission held in these circumstances, was not enough to extend employer liability to a private social function. The Star was therefore held vicariously liable only for the harassment that occurred during work shifts at the casino.

Loquias suffered significant ongoing psychological harm, with medical evidence confirming an exacerbation of pre-existing Complex PTSD, anxiety and depression. The Star and Dwyer were jointly ordered to pay her $49,427 for the workplace conduct. Dwyer was separately ordered to pay a further $77,435 for the Valley Allegations and aggravated damages, bringing the Complainant's total compensation to over $127,000.

What This Means for Employers

This case is a clear signal that reasonable steps must be genuinely capable of preventing the conduct, not merely capable of being recorded as completed.

Importantly, employers should appreciate this decision concerned State sexual harassment legislation as it was in place at the time. Employers are now bound by the higher Federal “positive duty” standard – a legal obligation requiring employers to take proactive, reasonable, and proportionate measures to prevent, rather than just respond to, workplace sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and related unlawful conduct. It requires a systemic, risk-based approach to foster safe, respectful workplaces

For employers, that means:

• Training must be delivered in dedicated, distraction-free time. Completing compliance modules while managing ordinary work duties falls below the standard the law requires.

• Employees with a history of substantiated complaints need a tailored response: more frequent training, closer monitoring, or other targeted interventions beyond the standard program.

• Frameworks should be reviewed regularly to confirm that training is being completed meaningfully in practice, not just ticked off in a system.

The Star's experience is a reminder that compliance is not the same as prevention. A training program employees can skip through on the casino floor is not a reasonable step. If you would like us to review your sexual harassment and anti-discrimination framework, please contact our people.

Please contact one of our lawyers for advice about your specific situation.