Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

SEXUAL HARASSMENT AT THE WORKPLACE

In brief

  • Repeatedly calling a person “sweetie” and flirting with colleagues are acts that are frowned upon in a professional work environment. However, do these acts actually amount to sexual harassment? In this post, we’ll look at what constitutes sexual harassment in the eyes of the law, as well as how to handle sexual harassment accusations.

Definition of ‘Sexual Harassment’ 

  • Sexual harassment is defined as ‘any unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, whether verbal, non-verbal, visual, gestural or physical, directed at a person which is offensive or humiliating or is a threat to his well-being, arising out of and in the course of his employment,’ according to section 2 of the Employment Act 1955 (EA 1955) . 
  • The following are some examples that could fall within the EA 1955 definition;

a) When your colleague does not consent to your touches such as holding a colleague’s waist or hand or thighs. 

b) Stalking your coworker in the carpark.

c) Continue to persuade your coworker to go on a date with you despite several rejections. 

  • There was no specific legislation to address sexual harassment (aside from the general provisions in the Penal Code) prior to the amendment of the Employment Act 1955 (“Act”), and we were reliant on the Code of Practice and the Prevention and Eradication of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace 1999 (“Code”) as a guideline for employees to protect themselves and for employers to provide appropriate recourse.

Who may file a sexual harassment complaint?

  •  ‘Complaint of sexual harassment,’ as defined in S.81A of the EA 1955, includes any complaint pertaining to sexual harassment made:(i) by an employee against another employee; (ii) by an employee against the employer; or (iii) by an employer against an employee.
  •  In addition sexual harassment is further divided into two categories by the Code of Practice: “sexual coercion” and “sexual annoyance,” which, in short, means:

a) Sexual coercion occurs when a sexual harassment act or behaviour has a direct impact on the victim’s work. A situation where a superior threatens to deprive a subordinate of employment benefits if the subordinate refuses the superior’s request for a date is an example of sexual coercion. 

Q. My boss has been harassing me to go on a date with him after work, threatening to deny me a promotion if I don’t. Is this seen as a kind of sexual harassment? 

A. Yes, the scenario stated above obviously qualifies as sexual harassment. This scenario may be seen on social media or elsewhere almost every day, when employees are harassed by their employers at work, and some have even been threatened by them. For example, if your employer has been persistently embarrassing and disrupting your workplace with his sexual jokes, or if he has repeatedly asked you to go on dates with him despite your repeated rejections.

b) Sexual annoyance occurs where the sexually-related conduct is offensive, hostile and/or intimidating to the recipient, but nonetheless has no direct link to any job benefits. This definition also extends to sexually-related conduct by the company’s clients towards employees. An example of sexual annoyance includes a situation where a colleague constantly makes suggestive and offensive sexual remarks to another colleague of similar rank.

How will allegations of sexual harassment be handled? 

  •  Section 81D of the EA 1955 requires employers to investigate any sexual harassment complaint received within 30 days of receipt. However, an employer may decline to investigate a sexual harassment complaint if the issue has previously been investigated and no sexual harassment has been shown, or if the employer believes the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, or not presented in good faith. Within 30 days of receiving the complaint, the employer must notify the complainant in writing of the refusal to investigate the allegation of sexual harassment, as well as the reasons for the refusal.
  •  If you are unsatisfied with your employer’s conclusions, you may request a review from the Director General of the Labour Department (“Director General”). Once brought to the Director General’s attention, the employer may be asked to reinvestigate the complaint and must give a report to the Director General within 30 days.

Q. What actions will be taken if my employer believes that sexual harassment has been proven?

A. Here’s some good news: if the harasser is found guilty by their employer, he will be fired without notice, demoted, or subjected to a lower punishment than those listed above, as the employer judges reasonable and appropriate, or suspended without pay for a term of no more than two weeks.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

TORT – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS BAR REAFFIRMED: MMC LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE BUT PROTECTED FROM LOST PROFIT CLAIMS

In Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 3144, the High Court awarded over RM2 million in damages against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance during its accreditation of Lincoln University College’s medical programmes. While the court allowed direct financial losses such as survey costs, it barred claims exceeding RM550 million for lost profits, reaffirming the Federal Court’s rulings in Steven Phoa and UDA Holdings that pure economic loss is not recoverable from public or statutory bodies. The second defendant was further ordered to pay RM100,000 in exemplary damages for acting with targeted malice, marking a rare personal liability finding against a regulatory officer.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

TOTAL FAILURE CONSIDERATION – FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES BERJAYA TIMES SQUARE: TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION REDEFINED

In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong [2025] 6 MLJ 327, the Federal Court unanimously overruled Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd and clarified that the doctrine of total failure of consideration applies only to restitutionary relief, not to contractual termination. The Court held that the correct test is whether the promisor has performed any part of the contractual duties in respect of which payment is due, adopting Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574. Finding that the appellants had partly performed their obligations and the respondent had derived benefits, the Court rejected the respondent’s claim for restitution and restored the appellants’ contractual claim. The landmark decision restores clarity between contract and restitution, reinforcing commercial certainty in Malaysian law.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami