Clutzy Love-Fest; “Trench” Loses Against A&O Mastermind Defector Grant Fuzi

The “Trench” v Clayton Utz sexual harassment/bullying/victimisation saga shows no sign of ending. However, it has now reached the offices of A&O matermind defector Grant Fuzi, who is simultaneously allegedly fighting an equitable action against Clayton Utz for a breach of fiduciary duties.

It is one big Trench-coated Clutzy Fuz-ball love-fest!

Clayton Utz yesterday

For those unfamiliar with this forgettable episode in Clutz’s recent history, let us refresh your memory:

[Trench] alleges that Mr Williams, Mr Taylor, Ms Goumenis, Ms Best and Mr Robinson, all employees of Clayton Utz, sexually harassed him. With respect to Mr Williams, it is alleged that:

…He says they were making jokes about him ‘articulating the association between trench coats and deviant and illegal sexual behaviour and referring to him as a ‘flasher’ and as ‘trench’.

[it is alleged that]… On one occasion, Mr Williams ‘explained to the applicant how solicitors could take paralegals home for sex’.[emphasis added].

[it is alleged] One Friday evening Mr Taylor went into Mr Mitchell’s office, took his coat, put it on and ran up and down the hallway calling out ‘trench, trench, trench’. He then went into the office of Mr Ho and continued to make fun of Mr Mitchell. Mr Taylor agrees that he put Mr Mitchell’s coat on and walked several metres down the hall, saying ‘trench-coat’ several times in a sing-song voice.

…With respect to Ms Goumenis, Mr Mitchell alleges that she referred to Mr Mitchell as ‘trench’ as a way of ‘getting his attention’

Mr Mitchell says that Mr Robinson is a partner of Clayton Utz and that he was aware that he was being called ‘trench’ and did nothing to stop the conduct… According to Mr Mitchell, Mr Robinson derived ‘maximum enjoyment’ out of the [Trench] comments.

Conclusion. Leave is granted for the complaints of sexual harassment against Mr Williams and Mr Taylor personally and against Clayton Utz as their employer…

We received the following comments yesterday alerting us to a new interlocutory decision in the “Trench” saga (thanks very much to the anonymous spy in question):

Clutz is on a roll.  Fuzi better watch out! Arguing that Mike Trench Mitchell`s claims were “speculative” and insufficiently “particularized,” Clutz scored a major victory against the naked Trench. If they ever get back that $700,000 from  Fuzi they might just buy themselves some champagne - http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/adtjudgments/2010nswadt.nsf/731b718ec02a5793ca25684e00413824/3398fec1280164a8ca25770b001be6c1?OpenDocument

As you’ll note in the decision, “Trench” asked the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal for leave to amend his complaint. In particular, “Trench” wanted leave to amend his complaint to add:

1. a complaint of “aiding and abetting” against Mr Trevor Robinson & Ms Sonia Goumenis; and
2. a complaint of victimisation against Mr Grant Fuzi and Clayton Utz.

In what we would characterise as a weak decision, Deputy President Hennessy refused the application. In relation to the complaints against A&O defector mastermind Grant Fuzi, “Trench” made the following allegations:

Mr Mitchell alleges that … Mr Fuzi victimised him… Mr Fuzi is said to be the head of Banking and Financial Services at Clayton Utz. The triggering event … was that Mr Mitchell told Mr Fuzi during an interview that he had been sexually harassed by other employees. The ‘detriment’ was restricting his access to necessary information about the accusation of sexual harassment against him during the investigation process. The causal connection between those events was said to be that Mr Fuzi refused to provide the necessary information straight after Mr Mitchell made that allegation. Mr Mitchell clarified in his reply to the respondents’ submissions that he is seeking to add Clayton Utz as a respondent because they are vicariously liable for Mr Fuzi’s conduct. Mr Mitchell explained the victimisation complaint in his submissions to the Tribunal in the following terms::

“Once I informed Grant Fuzi that I experienced harassment, he refused to provide the rest of the allegations against me … he said he needed to check with some other people before he could release the rest of the allegations although he later provided the allegations by e-mail… Grant Fuzi and Clayton Utz restricted my access to other necessary information about the accusations against me that I should have been guaranteed under the employee handbook… [which] states that it will follow natural justice in dealing with the investigation…”

Mr Mitchell alleges that Mr Fuzi’s conduct constituted discrimination on the ground of sex and/or disability.

The Tribunal declined to grant “Trench” leave to amend his complaint on the basis of prejudice to Fuzi and based on the Deputy President’s perception that “Trench” had a detailed knowledge of the anti-discrimination laws and had “ample opportunity to make that complaint to the Board”.

Are you convinced? What should “Trench” do next?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!