Employees admitted they would 'skip through it' while managing the casino floor
A Queensland tribunal has ruled that letting employees complete compliance training while working doesn't count as reasonable steps to prevent harassment.
The January 31, 2026 decision in Loquias v The Star Entertainment Group has sent ripples through HR departments, not because sexual harassment cases are unusual, but because of what the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission said about how companies deliver their training.
Olivia Loquias was 21 and working as a casino games dealer when her manager, John Dwyer, began sexually harassing her. Over several months in 2020 and 2021, he touched her face and pinched her arm without permission, made explicit comments about her body, and told her she wouldn't look pretty if she frowned. When she reported a previous harassment incident involving other managers, Dwyer told her he "would have done a lot worse" to her.
The Star appeared to have its compliance house in order. The company had a detailed Equal Employment Opportunity Policy, a Code of Conduct, and formal misconduct procedures. Every employee had to complete online training modules covering sexual harassment every two years, including programs called "Do the Right Thing" and "Code of Conduct."
But the tribunal found a critical flaw in execution. Dwyer admitted during testimony that he and other managers would rush through the modules while simultaneously managing the casino floor. "As managers, we just had to do it during the course of our job," he said, explaining that "people just skip through it" because they're busy and "under the pump."
Industrial Commissioner Power rejected this approach wholesale. "Genuine training cannot reasonably occur when employees are completing the training online whilst simultaneously attending to their duties," the commissioner wrote.
The tribunal also took issue with how The Star handled Dwyer's history. In 2016, another young female dealer had lodged a substantiated harassment complaint against him. He received a final warning and completed additional training. Then he went back to the standard two-year training cycle like everyone else.
That wasn't enough, the tribunal found. Someone who had already crossed the line needed something different: more frequent training, closer monitoring, or other interventions beyond the standard approach.
The case did establish boundaries around employer responsibility. While The Star was held liable for harassment in the workplace, it was not liable for Dwyer's assault of Loquias at a colleague's private birthday party in Fortitude Valley, even though coworkers attended. The event was a personal celebration, not organized or authorized by the employer, and therefore fell outside the scope of work.
The tribunal's message to employers is direct. Comprehensive policies matter less if training delivery allows employees to treat compliance as a box-ticking exercise. Setting aside dedicated time for training, away from regular work duties, costs more. But as The Star discovered, the alternative can be far more expensive.
The tribunal ordered The Star to pay Loquias nearly $50,000 in damages, part of a total award exceeding $110,000 that included compensation for medical expenses and lost income.
