A Queensland worker who suffered workplace sexual harassment from an independent contractor and a customer has been awarded $116,000 by a federal court. The two harassers had targeted the victim with homophobic and sexualised abuse while he worked at a Queensland storage facility. The court noted that the abuse was a “very serious” example of workplace sexual harassment. Despite not being on the company’s payroll, the two men were found liable under a relatively new provision of the Fair Work Act 2009 that penalises third-party abusers.
In this article, we detail the abuse suffered by the victim and why the court awarded compensation in this workplace sexual harassment case: Eklom v Marshall [2026].
Queensland-based Samuel Eklom started working as a storage consultant for Storage King in September 2023. Over time, his role expanded to include the duties of a full site manager. This made him responsible for tasks covering customer service, marketing, banking and maintenance. While Mr. Eklom reported feeling overwhelmed by his responsibilities, his situation grew considerably worse due to the hostile work environment and sexual harassment caused by colleague Jacob Marshall.
Mr. Marshall was first known to Mr. Eklom as Storage King’s very first customer. However, the business subsequently engaged Mr. Marshall as an independent contractor to assist with cleaning and site maintenance. From late 2024, Mr. Marshall began targeting Mr. Eklom with explicit homophobic and sexualised comments. He frequently referred to Mr. Eklom as “office boy” and made derogatory remarks such as “Oh, the gay boy is cleaning again.” Mr. Marshall also said to Mr. Eklom, “He probably likes it that way” and “You sure you are not just into blokes?” Mr. Eklom was also subjected to unwanted physical contact by Mr. Marshall, including shoving and bumping, which he casually brushed off as joking around.
Mr. Marshall had struck up a close relationship with Troy Mitchell, who was a regular, high-volume customer of Storage King. Because of the substantial amount of business he conducted with Storage King, Mr. Mitchell became a consistent feature of Mr. Eklom’s workplace. Mr. Eklom was directly responsible for managing Mr. Mitchell’s account and handling his customer interactions. The court remarked that Mr. Marshal and Mitchell would “bounce off each other” to make Mr. Eklom the “butt of the joke.” It said that this dynamic “ended up being almost like a game” for the two harassers.
The pair routinely used the slurs “the gay boy” and “the storage queen” to mock the manager. In January 2025, Mr. Mitchell remarked that Mr. Eklom was “Getting tied up and left in a shed”, to which Mr. Marshall quickly replied, “He is probably used to it.” In February 2025, while the manager was crouching down to clean, Mr. Mitchell commented that he was “bending over to clean the shed like he is practising for something.” Mr. Marshall smirked and added, “Yes, we know you like it that way.”
The sexual harassment in the workplace continued as Mr. Eklom undertook ordinary daily tasks. When he was crouching down to plug in his mobile phone, Mr. Marshall remarked that he would “Probably spend more time on his knees than actually working.” This prompted Mr. Mitchell to ask, “You sure you are not just into blokes?” In March 2025, Mr. Mitchell detailed an online video he had seen regarding a person caught on camera sniffing women’s underwear. Mr. Marshall laughed and stated, “Imagine that happening here.” He then turned directly to Mr. Eklom to say, “Bet Sam is into that sort of thing”.
Later that month, Mr. Marshall remarked that someone was “Getting pounded from behind in one of the sheds.” He then looked directly at Mr. Eklom and said, “He is probably used to it”. The two men also made overt statements that Mr. Eklom would “Get raped in the shed.” They also said that if anyone followed him into a unit “It will turn into a sex party”, and that Mr. Eklom would “Probably get a stiffy”. The hostility extended outside hours via text communication. On 5 May 2025, Mr. Eklom sent a text message saying “Hey” to Mr. Mitchell to address a business matter. He then received the reply, “I’m at home you poof.”
Mr. Eklom told the court that the hostile work environment began to affect his standing at work, as Storage King started forming a negative view of his performance. Mr. Eklom gathered the courage to lodge a formal internal complaint with Storage King, detailing the severe harassment he was facing. He provided proof of the abuse by sharing an audio recording he had made. However, the company did not act against the harassers.
Instead, management turned the issue back on Mr. Eklom, telling him that he had breached the Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 (Qld) by making the secret recording. Following this, Mr. Eklom took a period of personal leave to cope with his diagnosed anxiety and depressive disorder caused by the workplace sexual harassment. While he was on personal leave, Storage King moved ahead with termination of employment.
In July 2025, Mr. Eklom filed an application in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. He sought formal court declarations of statutory breaches, financial compensation for loss under section 545(2)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009, and civil pecuniary penalties. Initially, Mr. Eklom’s lawsuit included his employer, asserting that the company had breached industrial laws due to the workplace sexual harassment. However, once Storage King filed its defense proving that neither Mr. Marshall nor Mr. Mitchell were actual employees of the company, Mr. Eklom quickly discontinued his legal action against the business.
This left Mr. Marshall, an independent contractor of Storage King, and Mr. Mitchell, its customer, as the sole targets of the lawsuit. Despite being served with court documents, neither of the duo engaged with the legal system at all. They failed to participate in directions hearings, failed to file any defense and entirely ignored the litigation. Consequently, on 15 December 2025, the court found both men to be in default and declared that they had contravened section 527D of the Fair Work Act 2009 by sexually harassing Mr. Eklom. The court gave both men a final opportunity to make submissions on compensation and penalties, but they again refused to participate.
The Federal Circuit and Family Court delivered its ruling on Mr. Eklom’s sexual harassment claim in March 2026. The court found that Mr. Marshall and Mr. Mitchell had breached section 527D of the Fair Work Act 2009. This relatively new provision explicitly prohibits sexual harassment in connection with work, therefore making the two men liable even though they were not employees. The court’s findings included:
The Federal Circuit and Family Court accepted that Mr. Eklom suffered significant economic loss from his dismissal. However, it ruled that decision was made by Storage King and could not be legally recovered from Mr. Marshal or Mr. Mitchell. But it found that the duo were responsible for the psychological harm to Mr. Eklom. The court ordered the two men to pay him $90,000 in compensation for the harm. Compensation for aggravated damages was declined by the court. This was because the court deemed that the duo absenting themselves from legal proceedings was not an unreasonable litigation tactic.
The court then turned to the assessment of pecuniary penalties under section 546 of the Fair Work Act 2009. It emphasised that a civil penalty aims to carry a sufficient “sting or burden” to prevent others from acting in a similar manner. The court noted that the perpetrators were a contractor and a customer rather than company managers. Therefore, there was no traditional employment power imbalance over a subordinate, which served to mitigate the penalty in a significant way.
However, the court highlighted that both men showed zero remorse and refused to engage with legal proceedings. It therefore determined that a strong penalty was needed to deter anyone else who is “minded to act in such an abhorrent way in the workplace”. The court ordered both Mr. Marshall and Mr. Mitchell to pay an individual penalty of $13,000 each. The court intentionally set the penalties higher than the amount Mr. Eklom’s legal team had originally contended for. This was to achieve the necessary level of deterrence. Both penalties, amounting to $116,000, were ordered to be paid directly to Mr. Eklom within sixty days.
Yes. Under section 527D of the Fair Work Act 2009, it is unlawful for any person to sexually harass a worker in connection with their work. The statutory protections are not limited to traditional employer-employee dynamics. As demonstrated in Eklom v Marshall [2026], individual third parties, including independent contractors and regular customers, can be held directly and personally liable if they create a hostile work environment for a staff member.
Section 527D is a provision of the Fair Work Act 2009 that explicitly prohibits any individual (not only employees) from carrying out sexual harassment against a worker if the conduct occurs in connection with the worker’s employment. In Eklom v Marshall [2026], this provision allowed the victim to pursue civil remedies directly against an independent contractor and a regular customer who targeted him with homophobic slurs. The court used this provision to establish that an individual’s legal identity or employment status within a business ecosystem is entirely immaterial. This means that third-party abusers are personally responsible for the psychological harm they caused.
The individual contractor is personally liable for their own unlawful conduct under the Fair Work Act 2009. This is due to section 527D of the Fair Work Act 2009, which makes it unlawful for any person (whether they are an employee or not) to sexually harass a worker in connection with their work. For instance, in Eklom v Marshall [2026] an independent contractor and a customer were ordered to pay pecuniary penalties and compensation for sexually harassing an employee.
Read more: District Court judge rules ‘joke’ email defamed prison officer
As this judgment shows, the Fair Work Act 2009 protects workers from abuse regardless of whether the perpetrator is a boss, colleague, independent contractor or a customer. If you have been subjected to workplace sexual harassment, a hostile work environment, or faced unfair termination of employment, you have legal avenues to hold the wrongdoers accountable.
Our team at Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives represents employees nationwide in complex workplace disputes. This includes sexual harassment claims, Fair Work unfair dismissals, forced resignations and general protections matters. We have a proven track record of standing up to employers and third parties to ensure you secure the justice and financial compensation you deserve.
Strict timeframes apply when making Fair Work claims, so contact us now on 1800 333 666 for a free, confidential consultation.
