SEXUAL HARASSMENT AT THE WORKPLACE

Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

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.

EMPLOYMENT – RETRENCHMENT – INDUSTRIAL COURT UPHOLDS GLOBAL RESTRUCTURING: REDUNDANCY VALID DESPITE ONGOING WORK OVERSEAS

In Sin Leong v BT Systems (M) Sdn Bhd [2025] 4 ILJ 221, the Industrial Court upheld the employer’s retrenchment exercise following a global restructuring, ruling that the claimant was lawfully dismissed due to genuine redundancy. Although the claimant’s functions continued in India, the Court held that the abolition of the entire Malaysian team sufficed to establish redundancy. The company’s profitability did not negate the restructuring, and the LIFO principle did not apply since the whole department was closed. The decision reinforces that courts will respect managerial prerogative, provided the retrenchment is bona fide and not tainted by mala fide or victimisation.

30 March ,2026 No Comments

DECREE NISI – ADULTERY AND FRAUD – NOT CONCEAL REMARRIAGE – COLLUSION EVIDENCE

In Kanagasingam a/l Kandiah v Shireen a/p Chelliah Thiruchelvam & Anor [2026] 7 MLJ 494, the High Court set aside spousal maintenance and committal orders after finding that the ex-wife had fraudulently concealed her remarriage, which by law extinguished her entitlement under section 82 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. The Court held that consent orders obtained through non-disclosure were vitiated by fraud and ordered repayment of RM310,000, together with RM400,000 in aggravated damages and RM300,000 in exemplary damages. The decision underscores that fraud unravels all, even in family proceedings, and that courts will not hesitate to impose punitive consequences for abuse of process.

30 March ,2026 No Comments

FEDERAL COURT SAVES SECTION 233 CMA: ‘OFFENSIVE’ AND ‘ANNOY’ REMAIN CONSTITUTIONAL

In The Government of Malaysia v Heidy Quah Gaik Li [2026] MLJU 384, the Federal Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s ruling that had struck out the words “offensive” and “annoy” from section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. The Court held that these terms, when read together with the requirement of intent to annoy, fall within the permissible restrictions on free speech under Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution. While the impugned words were upheld as constitutional, the respondent’s acquittal was maintained as her Facebook posts criticising immigration detention conditions did not demonstrate the required intent to annoy or harass.

30 March ,2026 No Comments

HIGH COURT ORDERS TIKTOK VIDEO TAKEN DOWN: ADVICE ON SECRET CONVERSION OF MINORS VIOLATES CONSTITUTION

In Karnan a/l Rajanthiran & Ors v Firdaus Wong Wai Hung [2025] 9 MLJ 14, the High Court granted a mandatory interim injunction ordering the immediate removal of a viral TikTok video advising how underaged non-Muslim children could be secretly converted to Islam without their parents’ knowledge. The Court held that the advice prima facie breached Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, which provides that a minor’s religion must be determined by their parent or guardian. Given the risk of irreparable harm to constitutional rights, the Court found the case “unusually strong and clear” and concluded that justice and the balance of convenience favoured the urgent removal of the video pending trial.

30 March ,2026 No Comments

MARITIME LAW – CLAUSES 28 AND 29 BARECON 2001 – OWNERS CAN’T PICK ANY PORT: COURT LIMITS ‘CONVENIENCE’ IN VESSEL REPOSSESSION CLAUSE

In Songa Product and Chemical Tankers III AS v Kairos Shipping II LLC [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 100, the Court of Appeal held that a clause allowing owners to repossess a vessel at a location “convenient to them” does not entitle them to demand redelivery at any distant port of their choosing. The Court emphasised that repossession must occur as soon as reasonably practicable, and where the vessel is already at a safe and accessible port, owners cannot require charterers to incur the cost and risk of sailing it across the world. The decision clarifies that charterers, as gratuitous bailees post-termination, are only obliged to preserve the vessel – not to undertake burdensome repositioning for the owners’ convenience.

30 March ,2026 No Comments

MARINE INSURANCE – FRAUD DOESN’T DEFEAT COVER: COURT UPHOLDS MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM UNDER MII POLICY OF MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM

In Oceanus Capital Sarl v Lloyd’s Insurance Co SA (The “Vyssos”) [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 79, the Commercial Court held that a mortgagee was entitled to recover under a Mortgagee’s Interest Insurance (MII) policy despite a forged war risks cover note and a breach of trading warranties by the shipowner. The Court found that the proximate cause of loss was the mine strike, not the forged insurance, and that the mortgagee was not “privy” to the breach, as its consent had been induced by fraud. The decision reinforces that MII policies are designed to protect lenders from owner misconduct and non-recovery under primary insurance, and that fraud will not defeat cover where the mortgagee acted reasonably.

30 March ,2026 No Comments