crazy_wheeler
Active VIP Member
Found this story over on the Alberta Outdoorsman forum. The read made for a good laugh. If she gets a pay out would that constitute prostitution?
An Australian public servant says she is entitled to workers compensation after she was injured while having sex in a motel room during a business trip.
The woman claims she suffered a psychiatric injury, as well as injuries to her mouth and nose, when a glass light fitting in her room smashed down onto her head while she was having sex with an “acquaintance.”
Her claim was already rejected by ComCare, the workers’ compensation insurer for the Australian Commonwealth government, but she is now challenging that ruling in Australia’s federal court.
This week, the woman’s lawyer, Leo Grey, argued the woman — whose name and place of work are protected under a publication ban — is entitled to compensation because sex is “an ordinary incident of life,” akin to showering, sleeping and eating.
The incident occurred in November 2007 when the woman was required by her department to visit a regional office in New South Wales.
Grey said the woman was required to spend the night in the motel, which was chosen by her department. He further argued that the woman’s employer should have explicitly informed her that having sex while on a business trip was not appropriate.
“Sexual activity is an ordinary lawful incident of life that may be foreseeably undertaken by an employee such as the Applicant in a motel room during an interval or interlude in a period of employment involving an overnight stay,” reads the notice of appeal.
In an email to the Star, Grey said the case hinges of a “narrow legal issue,” and is not about morality or humour.
“My client was actually quite significantly injured and emotionally traumatized, both by her injury and the way it has been reported as a subject of fun, which for her it is not,” he said.
“It is also important to note that she did nothing wrong. She was a single woman who met up for a social evening with a man she already knew in the town she had gone to on business. There was no suggestion of any misconduct or failure to follow departmental guidelines.”
The insurance company is arguing the woman should not be compensated because having sex has no relation to the woman’s job and took place outside the course of her employment. In his submission to the court, ComCare’s lawyer, Andrew Berger, wrote the woman would only have a case if her employer “required” her to have sex.
“The applicant’s sexual activity which led her to injury can…be characterized as something that was not obviously involved in her employer’s requirement for an overnight stay; was not of any benefit to the employer; was a frolic of her own; and took her outside the course of her employment by engaging in an activity unrelated to her employment and not positively supported by her employer,” reads Berger’s submission.
The Herald Sun that the woman’s sexual partner said they were “going hard” when the incident with the light fixture took place.
“I do not know if we bumped the light or it just fell off,” he said. “I think she was on her back when it happened but I was not paying attention because we were rolling around.”
David Whitten, a Toronto employment lawyer who is not involved in the case, said the woman must prove that having sex was reasonably incidental to her work-related trip.
“In a case where someone is traveling for work and they’re required to go out to get some food to eat, as everyone has to, and they slip and fall, that could be regarded as incidental to the job,” he told the Star.
“Slipping in the shower would count, because you have to keep yourself clean. Is having sex necessary when you’re on a trip? All of us would probably like to have our spouses with us, but I don’t think you’re going to be able to effectively argue it’s absolutely necessary for the purposes of the job. That’s where she would fall short here.”
The judge has reserved his decision. It’s not clear when a verdict will be issued.
An Australian public servant says she is entitled to workers compensation after she was injured while having sex in a motel room during a business trip.
The woman claims she suffered a psychiatric injury, as well as injuries to her mouth and nose, when a glass light fitting in her room smashed down onto her head while she was having sex with an “acquaintance.”
Her claim was already rejected by ComCare, the workers’ compensation insurer for the Australian Commonwealth government, but she is now challenging that ruling in Australia’s federal court.
This week, the woman’s lawyer, Leo Grey, argued the woman — whose name and place of work are protected under a publication ban — is entitled to compensation because sex is “an ordinary incident of life,” akin to showering, sleeping and eating.
The incident occurred in November 2007 when the woman was required by her department to visit a regional office in New South Wales.
Grey said the woman was required to spend the night in the motel, which was chosen by her department. He further argued that the woman’s employer should have explicitly informed her that having sex while on a business trip was not appropriate.
“Sexual activity is an ordinary lawful incident of life that may be foreseeably undertaken by an employee such as the Applicant in a motel room during an interval or interlude in a period of employment involving an overnight stay,” reads the notice of appeal.
In an email to the Star, Grey said the case hinges of a “narrow legal issue,” and is not about morality or humour.
“My client was actually quite significantly injured and emotionally traumatized, both by her injury and the way it has been reported as a subject of fun, which for her it is not,” he said.
“It is also important to note that she did nothing wrong. She was a single woman who met up for a social evening with a man she already knew in the town she had gone to on business. There was no suggestion of any misconduct or failure to follow departmental guidelines.”
The insurance company is arguing the woman should not be compensated because having sex has no relation to the woman’s job and took place outside the course of her employment. In his submission to the court, ComCare’s lawyer, Andrew Berger, wrote the woman would only have a case if her employer “required” her to have sex.
“The applicant’s sexual activity which led her to injury can…be characterized as something that was not obviously involved in her employer’s requirement for an overnight stay; was not of any benefit to the employer; was a frolic of her own; and took her outside the course of her employment by engaging in an activity unrelated to her employment and not positively supported by her employer,” reads Berger’s submission.
The Herald Sun that the woman’s sexual partner said they were “going hard” when the incident with the light fixture took place.
“I do not know if we bumped the light or it just fell off,” he said. “I think she was on her back when it happened but I was not paying attention because we were rolling around.”
David Whitten, a Toronto employment lawyer who is not involved in the case, said the woman must prove that having sex was reasonably incidental to her work-related trip.
“In a case where someone is traveling for work and they’re required to go out to get some food to eat, as everyone has to, and they slip and fall, that could be regarded as incidental to the job,” he told the Star.
“Slipping in the shower would count, because you have to keep yourself clean. Is having sex necessary when you’re on a trip? All of us would probably like to have our spouses with us, but I don’t think you’re going to be able to effectively argue it’s absolutely necessary for the purposes of the job. That’s where she would fall short here.”
The judge has reserved his decision. It’s not clear when a verdict will be issued.
