Chen v Monash University

Relocation of Dr Chen to Southeast University (Allegation 35) 167 Dr Chen alleged that, following her rejection of Professor Simon's sexual advances, he discriminated against her on the ground of her sex by attempting to arrange for her to move to Southeast University in China. Dr Chen claimed that Professor Simon said words to the effect that "[y]ou don't fit into the community." This was said to have happened in mid-2011 after Dr Chen's promotion application had not been successful. 168 These allegations were denied by Professor Simon. They are not consistent with the documentary evidence. It was Dr Chen who had expressed a desire to leave Monash University because she had not been successful in obtaining research grants. She believed that "the unhealthy ARC system [had] badly slowed down [her] career development." She did not anticipate that there would be any significant "positive changes in the near future." 169 When Dr Chen had failed to obtain promotions in 2010 and 2011 she decided to apply for academic positions overseas, including at the Southeast University. She attributed her failure to obtain ARC grants as a lead researcher to "corruption" in the ARC. She was also resentful of the fact that some of her colleagues whom she regarded as being less worthy than herself (at least in teaching and publication) had been promoted when she had not. She did not, at that time, suggest that Professor Simon was in any way responsible for her inability to be promoted to Associate Professor. On the contrary, she valued his support sufficiently to nominate him as a referee when she made applications for positions at other Universities. It was "with regret" that Professor Simon agreed to write a reference for Dr Chen. Professor Simon gave evidence (which I accept) that he was concerned that Dr Chen might leave and was doing what he could to retain her at Monash. One important step that he took was to support her application for promotion outside the normal cycle. He also tried to persuade Dr Chen to stay by offering her "a kind of mini 'research accelerator'" with one of her students to assist her to obtain future ARC grants and promotions. 170 Dr Chen has failed to establish any factual foundation for these allegations.

False information regarding promotion application (Allegation 46) 171 Dr Chen alleged that, following her rejection of Professor Simon's sexual advances, he had engaged in sex discrimination by providing false information in relation to her promotion and award applications. 172 These allegations were very broad and non-specific. They add nothing to allegation 32 which has already been dealt with (see above at [162]-[166]. They evoked a general denial from Professor Simon who pointed to the many occasions on which he had actively supported Dr Chen's career advancement. His considerable assistance to Dr Chen is recorded elsewhere in these reasons. 173 Dr Chen has failed to make good this complaint.

Signing of application form (Allegation 48) 174 Dr Chen alleged that Professor Simon had discriminated against her by reason of her sex by seeking to avoid signing a written application by her for a teaching award. This was said to have occurred in April 2013. 175 Dr Chen had wished to apply for the Dean's Excellence in Teaching Award. On 24 April 2013, at 5:12 pm, she sent an email to Professor Simon to which was attached her application form. She drew his attention to the deadline for the lodging of applications which was at 5:00 pm on 26 April 2013. Professor Simon evidently received the email and, at 6:03 pm, sent an email to his personal assistant to ask her whether an electronic signature could be placed on the application form. The following day was ANZAC day and a public holiday. At about 2:47 pm on 26 April 2013 Professor Simon's personal assistant sent an email to Dr Chen in which she advised that: "Just to let you know that I cannot guarantee that I can get George [Simon] to do it by 5:00 pm. He has back-to-back meetings and people are waiting for him all the time." 176 It is this email which appears to have led Dr Chen to think that Professor Simon was seeking to prejudice her by failing to provide the necessary signature. 177 This apprehension was quickly disabused. Professor Simon signed the application form and his personal assistant provided it to Dr Chen in good time for her to lodge her application by the deadline. 178 There is no factual foundation for this allegation.

Allegation of sexual harassment and sex discrimination against Professor Simon (Allegation 47)

Relocation to Dr Chen's office (Allegation 47) 179 Dr Chen alleged that Professor Simon sexually harassed her and engaged in sex discrimination by attempting to have an office next to his allocated to her. 180 In February 2013 arrangements were being made to move some of the faculty offices to a new building. Dr Chen was advised that she had been allocated a new office which was next door to one which had been allocated to Professor Simon. Dr Chen alleged that this had occurred at Professor Simon's direction. 181 Professor Simon denied having anything to do with the decision to make these allocations. The decision had been made by Ms Fortington. 182 Ms Fortington confirmed that she had made the decision and had placed Dr Chen in an office near Professor Simon so that Dr Chen could be close to the students whom she supervised. 183 When Dr Chen became aware of the allocation she requested that she be moved to another office some distance from the one to be occupied by Professor Simon. Her request was granted. 184 Dr Chen has failed to establish any factual foundation for her allegations of harassment and discrimination against Professor Simon in relation to this incident.

Allegation of sex discrimination against Professor Simon and Professor Rudman (Allegation 42)

New Qualification for Early Career Researcher Award (Allegation 42) 185 In January 2012 Dr Chen lodged an internal complaint about what she considered to be the unacceptable behaviour of Professor Simon and others. It was later made to the Commission. Dr Chen alleged that, following her complaint to the University in November 2011, Professor Simon and Professor Rudman engaged in sex discrimination by imposing a new criterion for the award of the Early Career Researcher Award. Dr Chen contended that the purpose of this change was to prevent her from receiving the award. 186 This award had been available for many years and had been based on the applicant's achievements over the previous five years. In 2012, Professor Simon announced that the award would be for research conducted between 2009 and 2011 inclusive. Dr Chen believed that this change reduced her chance of winning the award. This was because she had a number of publications in 2007 and 2008 and two "high-impact" publications in 2008 and 2012. Dr Chen contended that she was one of two academics in her department who were eligible for the award and that the change only applied to her department. 187 On 19 March 2012 Professor Simon advised all staff in the department that the change had been made. Dr Chen immediately queried the accuracy of this advice. This led to some email exchanges between Professors Rudman and Simon which led them to the view that the five year criterion continued to apply. Almost immediately Professor Simon sent an email to all departmental staff advising that the award was for research completed within the previous five years and not the three year period earlier advised. On the following day Professor Simon sent an email to Dr Chen advising her that she was correct in her understanding of the relevant period. 188 It is evident that both Professors Rudman and Simon had made a mistake. Once it was drawn to their attention by Dr Chen and they had made inquiries they promptly corrected the error. Dr Chen was so advised. She suffered no prejudice. 189 Both Professors Rudman and Simon denied that their mistake about the eligibility criterion for the award was intended to or did disadvantage Dr Chen. I accept their denials. 190 This allegation lacks any factual basis.

Allegations of sexual harassment against Professor Davies (Allegations 11 and 15)

Professor Davies stared at Dr Chen (Allegation 11) 191 Dr Chen alleged that Professor Davies sexually harassed her on 2 July 2009, following a Faculty talk presented by her, when he stood at her office door and stared at her in what she described as an embarrassing and intimidating manner. 192 Professor Davies denied ever having stared at Dr Chen in such a manner. He also denied ever having been sexually attracted to her or romantically interested in her. 193 None of this evidence was challenged when Professor Davies was cross-examined. 194 Dr Chen made no complaint about this alleged misconduct at or about the time at which it was said to have occurred. 195 I accept Professor Davies' denials.

iPad sperm game (Allegation 15) 196 On 31 May 2010, Dr Chen attended a discussion day with members of the Department of Material Engineering. She alleged that Professor Davies sexually harassed her when he escorted her away from other members of the department to show her a game on his iPad. Dr Chen recalled that the objective of the game was to drag what she said was sperm through water to one of the four boxes located in the corners of the screen. This was done using an iPad pen. 197 Dr Chen asserted that this incident caused her distress and humiliation and that she felt threatened by Professor Davies' conduct. 198 Professor Davies gave evidence that he had taken delivery of a new iPad about four days before the meeting. He had downloaded a game called "Harbour Master". It depicted boats moving across a screen towards harbours. In the course of the day Professor Davies said that he had demonstrated his iPad's functionality to a number of those present. Dr Chen may have been one of these but he did not single her out or take her aside to show her the iPad. He said that he could not have moved any images on the screen by using an iPad pen because he did not have one on the day of the meeting. 199 Dr Chen made no contemporaneous complaint about Professor Davies' alleged conduct. She did, however, produce what she said was a contemporaneous note depicting a drawing of the screen image which she said she had made at the time. I harbour considerable reservations about this evidence. This "note" was not produced to the Commission when she made her complaint. It was first produced as an attachment to her application to the Court which was filed on 28 February 2013. 200 Once the University was seized of this allegation it arranged for Professor Davies' iPad to be subjected to forensic examination. That examination found no evidence of a "sperm game" ever having been downloaded on Professor Davies' iPad. The purchase history of items which he had downloaded was also examined and found no purchase of such a game. 201 Dr Chen was unable to identify any game which met the description of the one she said she had viewed on Professor Davies' iPad. 202 I am not satisfied that Professor Davies ever showed Dr Chen the "sperm game" on which this allegation is founded. I consider that it is far more likely that the game which Dr Chen saw on the iPad screen was the Harbour Master game. She has reconstructed an innocent event which caused her no concern at the time and has misused it in an attempt to malign Professor Davies. I reject the allegation.

Allegations of sex discrimination against Professor Davies (Allegations 28, 30, 31 and 33)

Failure to accept one of Dr Chen's prospective students as a PhD candidate (Allegation 28) 203 Dr Chen alleged that Professor Davies sexually discriminated against her by failing to allow one of her prospective students to enrol for a PhD degree. 204 In March 2011, Dr Chen was approached by a prospective, self-funded Chinese candidate for postgraduate studies. Professor Davies, who, at that time, was the Associate Dean responsible for research activities, was involved in establishing the equivalency of the student's credentials in order to determine whether he qualified for postgraduate studies at Monash University. This was necessary because the student had an undergraduate degree from a Chinese university. His qualification had to be compared with that of an Australian undergraduate qualification. Professor Davies initially considered that, in order for approval to be granted, it was necessary that the student have the equivalent of a first class honours Australian undergraduate degree. A degree of that quality would have attracted a scholarship to pursue doctoral studies at Monash University. Professor Davies assessed the student's qualification as equivalent to an honours (class 2 - division B) Australian degree and, therefore, refused to admit the student to doctoral studies. Dr Chen queried this decision. She understood the minimum entrance level required by the University was H2B. Dr Chen was aware of several students, including one of her own past PhD students, who had been approved with an H2B equivalency. 205 Professor Davies reconsidered his decision in the light of Dr Chen's query. He took further advice and made further inquiries. The result was that, on 9 May 2011, he approved the student's admission as a PhD candidate at the University. In the meantime, however, the student had decided to pursue his studies elsewhere. 206 During evidence Dr Chen refined her complaint to one of undue delay. She accepted that she would not have made the allegation if the student had come to Monash under her supervision. 207 No basis exists for the allegation that Professor Davies' conduct in dealing with the student's application involved any sexual discrimination by him against Dr Chen.

Professor Davies' refusal to discuss potential PhD student (Allegation 30) 208 Dr Chen alleged that, when she sought to approach Professor Davies to ask him for the reasons for his initial decision to reject the student's candidacy, Professor Davies had refused to discuss the matter with her. This, she said, constituted sexual discrimination. 209 Professor Davies could not recall any approach from Dr Chen in which she sought to discuss the matter with him. He said that, if he had declined to speak to her, it would have been because he was too busy at the time and not because of her gender. 210 At the time Dr Chen did not complain that Professor Davies had discriminated against her. Even if it be accepted that Professor Davies declined to discuss the matter with Dr Chen no basis exists, in the evidence, for attributing this failure to discrimination on the ground of Dr Chen's gender. 211 It may be noted in this context that one of the persons whom Dr Chen approached in an effort to gain support for the acceptance of the student's candidacy was Professor Simon. On the day on which Professor Davies agreed to approve the student's enrolment, Dr Chen wrote to Professor Simon saying: "Huge thanks once more, George, for your great support. It's unbelievably fast, because of you. I remember this, not just by the list (stuck on the wall) but with gratitude inside of me." Professor Simon responded by saying that he was glad that he could help and that he had spoken to Professor Davies about the matter. He also made various suggestions to Dr Chen about how the student's status at the university might be improved once he had arrived.

Professor Davies' failure to consider a scholarship for a prospective PhD student (Allegation 31) 212 In June 2011, Dr Chen was approached by a prospective PhD student, Surendra Jain, who was seeking a scholarship to undertake a second PhD. He had completed a PhD in computer modelling of carbon and proposed to complete a second PhD in tissue engineering. Professor Davies objected to the granting of the scholarship on the ground that there was a Faculty policy which prevented students who were attempting their second PhD from applying for a scholarship. As a result, Dr Chen had been unable to recruit this candidate and she was forced to forgo supervision of another PhD candidate. 213 Dr Chen argued that the Monash Research Graduate School Scholarships policy provided that, where the area of study for a second PhD degree is significantly different from the first, a scholarship could be considered in relation to the second course. Dr Chen requested a copy of the Faculty policy on scholarships and consulted with Ms Cassandra Meagher, the Faculty co-ordinator of Monash University Scholarship applications. This occurred in October 2011. Dr Chen alleged that Ms Meagher was not aware of the Faculty policy which had been cited by Professor Davies. Dr Chen alleged that Professor Davies' conduct constituted sexual discrimination. She further alleged that Professor Davies had applied arbitrary versions of the University policy in respect of two of her PhD students because she had confronted him about the iPad game. She asserted that the loss of her two PhD students contributed to the denial of her promotion application in 2011. 214 The Faculty policy on which Professor Davies relied when he made his decision was, as he said, that scholarships would not be offered to students who were undertaking studies towards a second PhD degree. Professor Davies' decision gave effect to this policy. The fact that another Faculty administrator was unaware of it is of no moment. 215 Professor Davies denied that his decision was influenced in any way by Dr Chen's gender. I accept his denial.

Incorrect advice about quantitative performance standards (Allegation 33) 216 Dr Chen alleged that she was "purposefully" given the wrong quantitative performance standards before she made her promotion application in June 2011. The person against whom this allegation is brought is unclear. In Dr Chen's application to the Court this allegation was levelled only against Professor Davies. During cross-examination, on 11 March 2014, Dr Chen asserted that she brought the allegation against Professor Davies and Monash University. In her amended application, dated 16 May 2014, she claimed that Professor Davies and Professor Sridhar were both involved in the alleged conduct. 217 At trial, Dr Chen asserted that Professor Davies and/or Professor Sridhar attempted to sabotage her academic development by instructing Ms Lyn Broadstock, the Faculty's promotion co-ordinator, deliberately to give Dr Chen the wrong performance standards. Dr Chen alleged that this conduct discriminated against her of the grounds of her sex. 218 In the middle of 2011 Dr Chen was preparing her promotion application. She had sought information relating to the "quantitative standards" which candidates were required to meet. The standards related to the amount of research funding which a candidate had attracted. 219 On 9 June 2011 Mr Broadstock sent Dr Chen a document which set out "performance measures". She told Dr Chen that the document contained the standards which had been approved by the University. It was common ground that the information contained in the document was not correct. 220 Dr Chen was concerned that she had not been given the correct advice and she raised the matter with Professor Simon. Professor Simon took the matter up with Professor Davies. Professor Davies subsequently advised him that Ms Broadstock may have distributed the wrong document and advised that the "correct version had been approved by the faculty board" and was to be found "at the academic promotions link and is attached to this email." Professor Simon then wrote to Dr Chen advising her that: "It turns out that [Ms Broadstock] may have given you the wrong [document] (supplied mistakenly or something common to her). The link I gave is correct." 221 Dr Chen responded by sending Professor Simon an email in which she said that: "…I am grateful to you, who gave me a hand and patiently, gentle-manfully and firmly pulling me out of the puddle which myself was not aware that I was in. I owe you big thanks!" 222 Dr Chen was given incorrect advice by Ms Broadstock. This occurred inadvertently. There is no evidence to suggest that the advice was given at the direction of Professor Davies or anyone else. As soon as Dr Chen had queried the accuracy of the information which had been supplied to her, Professors Davies and Simon made inquiries. They discovered the error and immediately corrected it. Dr Chen was in no way prejudiced. 223 There is no factual basis for this allegation of discrimination.

Allegations of sex discrimination against Monash University (Allegations 21, 22, 36, 37, 39 and 40)

Academic bullying (Allegation 21) 224 Dr Chen alleged that since October or November 2010, Professor Simon, Professor Sridhar and Professor Davies "committed illegal academic bully conducts (sic) in the most critical performance aspects aiming at constructive dismissal." 225 At trial this allegation was advanced as one of sex discrimination. It was not developed further by Dr Chen. It appeared that Dr Chen had collected, under this head, each of the complaints which she had made about the conduct of the three Professors towards her after the end of 2010. These complaints have been dealt with separately in these reasons. Each has been rejected. 226 Each of the three Professors gave evidence denying any bullying of Dr Chen. I accept their denials.

Threat to terminate employment (Allegation 22) 227 Dr Chen made an allegation of sex discrimination against Monash University based on some things said to her by Professor Sridhar on 16 November 2010. On this occasion Professor Sridhar met with Dr Chen to enquire whether she had any problems with Professor Simon. Dr Chen informed Professor Sridhar that Professor Simon was attempting to undervalue her performance. Professor Sridhar did not offer any assistance and instead responded by saying "[f]orget recognition. Do your research and teaching." Dr Chen alleged that, at the end of the conversation, Professor Sridhar noted that the University was in financial crisis and had just dismissed hundreds of staff members and indicated that more might follow in 2011. Dr Chen understood this to be a threat to her future employment with the University. 228 Professor Sridhar recalled having a meeting with Dr Chen in which they had discussed her work. He may well have referred to the University's financial difficulties in the course of that conversation but the reference to this matter carried no implied threat to Dr Chen's employment. He also denied any discrimination against her on the grounds of sex. I accept Professor Sridhar's denials. There is no support in the evidence for any suggestion that Professor Sridhar or other members of the Faculty had considered terminating Dr Chen's services at this time. On the contrary, Professor Simon, in particular, was actively seeking to assist Dr Chen in advancing her career at the University. 229 There is no factual foundation for Dr Chen's allegation. It must be rejected.

Failure to promote (Allegation 36) 230 As already recounted, in June 2011, Dr Chen applied for an academic promotion from Senior Lecturer to Associate Professor. Professor Davies was a member of the promotion committee in that year. Dr Chen asserted that she had what she described as "a history of conflict between [herself] and [Professor] Davies", including: The incident with the iPad "sperm game" (Allegation 15); Professor Davies treatment of two of Dr Chen's proposed PhD candidates (Allegation 31); and An unpleasant conversation between Dr Chen and Professor Davies about the disapproval of a self-funded PhD student (Allegation 28). 231 Dr Chen understood that, under the Monash University Diversity Policy, applicants who met some, but not all, of the criteria in research, education or service might still be eligible for promotion. Dr Chen considered herself to be an academic who had provided great service to the University. She did not believe that proper consideration was given by the committee to the Diversity Policy when deciding to reject her application and deny an appeal. She also noted that her research student numbers were reduced because Professor Davies erred in initially refusing to admit the applicant for entry to a PhD course. 232 Dr Chen complained that she was aware of at least three other (male) candidates from other departments of the Faculty who were promoted in 2011. She considered that her performance was as valuable to the University as that of the other candidates who received promotions. She noted that she had achieved excellent scores in the Unit Evaluation Report and MonQueST, a student evaluation report. Dr Chen alleged that Professor Davies and Monash University engaged in direct sex discrimination against her by treating her less favourably than they would a male in the same or similar circumstances. She further alleged that three members of the 2011 promotion committee, including Professor Davies, had conflicts of interest when considering her application. She asserted that Professor Davies interfered with her promotion application. 233 Professor Davies gave evidence that he was a member of the Promotions Committee in 2011. There were eight other members. Dr Chen's application had been considered in detail on its merits. The Committee had voted by a majority (7-2) against promotion. The majority view was that the application had been made "too early" in Dr Chen's career. While she had established a good teaching record she had not demonstrated a capacity to attract research funding. 234 Professor Davies could not recall how he voted but confirmed that he had considered voting for and against Dr Chen. He denied that his decision had in any way been influenced by extraneous factors. In particular, up until that time, Dr Chen had said nothing to him about the iPad "sperm game". She had raised that issue with him for the first time on 17 October 2011. Professor Davies also said that it was not unusual for first applications for promotion to be unsuccessful. 235 Dr Chen sought to challenge the refusal through a University appeal process. She relied on what she claimed to have been a procedural irregularity. She made no complaint of sexual discrimination. 236 There is no evidence to support Dr Chen's allegation that either Professor Davies or the University discriminated against her on the grounds of sex when dealing with her promotion application. The complaint must be rejected.

Feedback session following denial of promotion (Allegation 37) 237 On 24 August 2011, Dr Chen met with Professor Sridhar to discuss her promotion application. During the conversation Professor Sridhar informed Dr Chen that she needed to "improve [her] teaching" and "show excellent independent teaching skills." She said that Professor Sridhar had acknowledged that she had obtained high MonQueST scores but had said that these were not given much weight by promotions committees. Dr Chen's perception was that Professor Sridhar's comments were an attempt to disregard her teaching performance. She alleged that his conduct constituted sex discrimination. 238 Professor Sridhar acknowledged that he had had a "feedback session" with Dr Chen following the Promotion Committee's decision. It was likely that teaching performance had been discussed because it was one of the criteria for promotion. He did not seek to devalue Dr Chen's teaching ability. He would not have said that the Committee did not really have regard to MonQueST scores. What he would have, perhaps, said was that these scores were not the only evaluation tool taken into account. The principal measure was unit evaluation results. 239 Even if Dr Chen's account of this conversation were accepted, there is nothing which was said by Professor Sridhar which would support a complaint of sex discrimination.

Rejection of promotion appeal (Allegation 39) 240 In September 2011, Dr Chen wrote to the University seeking reconsideration of her promotion application. She requested a rehearing on the basis of procedural irregularities. These irregularities included being provided with the incorrect quantitative academic performance standards and being advised by Professor Simon not to include any achievements that pre-dated her employment with Monash University in her application. 241 Dr Chen contended that she followed the relevant Monash University policy when she made her review application to the Faculty Associate Professor Promotion Rehearing Committee ("the Review Committee") by including evidence of procedural irregularities at the first step of the appeal process. On 26 September 2011, the Review Committee concluded that Dr Chen had failed to establish a prima facie case for a rehearing of her application for promotion and she was so advised by the Deputy Vice Chancellor. The Review Committee considered that the grounds she had advanced for a rehearing did not meet the requirement of a procedural irregularity leading to a material disadvantage. Dr Chen alleged that Monash University engaged in sex discrimination by rejecting her application for a rehearing. 242 An examination of the records of the Review Committee's deliberations disclosed no impropriety. At least one of the irregularities on which she relied had been corrected before her original application had been considered. Dr Chen's appeal was rejected on its merits. The correctness of the decision is not in issue in the present proceeding. What is material is that there is not the slightest hint that the appeal committee discriminated against Dr Chen on the ground of sex.

Rejection of alternative application for promotion (Allegation 40) 243 Dr Chen alleged that Monash University, through the actions of Professor Sridhar, engaged in sex discrimination on 13 December 2011 when he rejected her request for an accelerated promotion. Dr Chen alleged that Professor Sridhar said words to the effect: "[The committee] cannot accept the fact that whenever we make a decision against you, there is always a big appeal … We expect you to accept the decision and move on, … whether it is fair or not is not the point. The decision is that we do not want to revisit". 244 Academic promotion at Monash University was normally dealt with annually when applications were made and considered. Provision was made for promotions to occur, in exceptional circumstances, outside this cycle. Typically, this would occur when the University was seeking to retain the services of an academic who had been made an offer by another institution. 245 Dr Chen sought to obtain promotion through this process late in 2011. Having considered her application Professor Sridhar wrote to her on 11 December 2011 advising her that "[i]n circumstances where you were so recently considered for promotion and had a full opportunity to put the merits of your application to the relevant promotions committee, I see no justification for me to initiate a request for a counter offer even if you are made an offer by another institution." Two days later Dr Chen had a meeting with Professor Sridhar to discuss his decision. Unbeknown to Professor Sridhar Dr Chen tape recorded the conversation. The words attributed to Professor Sridhar appear on a transcript of the recording. 246 A reading of the full transcript puts Professor Sridhar's remarks in context. He was seeking to persuade Dr Chen to look forward rather than dwell on her unsuccessful promotion application. There is certainly an element of frustration with Dr Chen's persistence in pursing her promotion claim. What is significant, however, for present purposes is that there is not the slightest suggestion, in the course of the conversation, that Professor Sridhar's decision was in any way based on sex discrimination. The allegation lacks substance.

Allegations of sex discrimination against Professor Simon, Professor Davies, Professor Sridhar and Monash University following internal complaint (Allegations 34, 41, 45 and 44) 247 On 5 October 2011, Dr Chen made a complaint by email to Ms Lisa Warman, the Human Resources representative of the Engineering Faculty, about what she said was the unacceptable behaviour by Professor Davies. She raised her concerns again on 20 October 2011. 248 On 6 November 2011, she filed an internal complaint with Ms Leah Zaks and Mr Andrew Picouleau which detailed the unacceptable behaviour she attributed to Professor Davies. 249 In late January 2012, Dr Chen filed an internal complaint with Mr Steven Smith which set out what she said was unacceptable behaviour by Professor Davies, Professor Simon and Monash University. On 13 February 2012, the University advised Dr Chen that it had engaged the services of an independent external consultant, Ms Norena Kavanagh, to make preliminary inquiries into the matters set out in the complaint. 250 On 22 February 2012, Ms Kavanagh met with Dr Chen to conduct preliminary inquiries into her complaints. In March 2012, Ms Kavanagh prepared a report on her findings and concluded that it was not necessary to conduct a formal investigation into Dr Chen's complaint. 251 On 29 March 2012, Dr Chen met with Ms Amanda Robertson, Human Resources Director of Monash University, to discuss Ms Kavanagh's report. At the meeting, Dr Chen raised her concerns about what she said were inaccuracies in the report and complained about what she considered to be the unfairness and irresponsibility of the decision. 252 Dr Chen made a number of allegations about the conduct of Professor Rudman and other Monash University employees that she says resulted from the making of her complaint.

Incorrect statements about Dr Chen's research performance in 2011 and 2012 (Allegations 34 and 45) 253 Dr Chen alleged that, following her complaints, Professor Rudman had made a number of factually incorrect statements about Dr Chen's research performance in her 2011 and 2012 reports. These reports were a critical part of an applicant's promotion application. Dr Chen raised this issue with Professor Rudman. The reports were later revised. Dr Chen alleged that Professor Rudman discriminated against her by reason of her sex by incorporating the errors in his original report. 254 The 2011 report was written by Professor Rudman in about July of that year. 255 Professor Rudman gave evidence that he had sought to write a report which fairly assessed Dr Chen's research work. He provided a draft to her and she told him that the report contained certain errors. Having been so advised Professor Rudman made appropriate corrections. Those corrections were made before the report had been considered by the Promotions Committee. The errors had no impact on Dr Chen's promotion application. 256 Even before the corrections were made, the report was generally positive and favourable to Dr Chen. 257 There is no basis for any suggestion that, the errors, made by Professor Rudman, were attributable to sex discrimination. In particular, Professor Rudman was new to the University and Dr Chen's first complaints about sexual discrimination were not made until 5 October 2011, well after the errors were made. Furthermore, Professor Rudman corrected those errors. 258 The 2012 research report, prepared by Professor Rudman, also contained some errors. Again Dr Chen pointed them out and, again corrections were made before the report was considered by the Promotions Committee. 259 Professor Rudman gave evidence that he had sought to write a report that accurately and fairly assessed Dr Chen's work. When the mistakes were drawn to his attention he corrected them. He denied that the errors were attributable to sex discrimination. 260 I accept Professor Rudman's denial. The contrary assertion is fanciful. Professor Rudman acknowledged that he had made some mistakes and corrected them. He sat as a member of the Promotions Committee in 2012. He voted in favour of Dr Chen's promotion. She was promoted.

Negative remarks about internal research grant application (Allegation 41) 261 Dr Chen alleged that, following an informal complaint by her to the University, Professor Rudman engaged in sex discrimination by making negative remarks about her work to the reviewers of the internal research grant scheme. This was said to have caused her 2011 application for an internal research grant to be denied. 262 On 5 October 2011 Dr Chen made the complaint to an officer of the University's Human Relations Department about what she said was unacceptable behaviour on the part of Professor Davies. At or about this time she had made an application for funding under the Engineering Seed Funding Scheme. She had been successful in obtaining grants under this scheme in 2009 and 2010. 263 In late November 2011 Professor Rudman wrote to her advising that her application had been unsuccessful. He provided her with "feedback" from the panel which had determined to reject the application. That feedback included Dr Chen's failure to provide the panel with certain reports, her failure to make a case that she was the best researcher for the proposed project, confusion as to the current state of some relevant research, a failure by Dr Chen to explain the expected outcome of her research and the need for her to pay more attention to the layout of her application. 264 Professor Rudman gave evidence that the decision had been made by the panel. He was a member of the panel and had considered Dr Chen's application on its merits having regard to the merits of competing applications. He considered that Dr Chen's application was deficient in a number of respects, namely, those outlined by the panel. 265 He denied having discriminated against Dr Chen by reason of her gender when making the decision. I accept his denial.

Award of Excellence in Master's Thesis (Allegation 44) 266 Dr Chen alleged that, following her complaint to the University about Professor Davies, a number of University employees discriminated against her by reason of her sex. These included Professor Rudman who, she claimed, had denied her postgraduate student, Ms Shuling Liang, the Award of Excellence in Master's Thesis because Dr Chen was her supervisor. 267 Dr Chen said that Ms Liang had produced six quality publications when most Master's degree students produce no journal articles or 1-2 articles at most. For this reason, Dr Chen asserted that Ms Liang's publications were exceptional and outstanding. Dr Chen claimed that awards given to research students are an important indicator of the academic performance of their supervisors. 268 Professor Rudman gave evidence that he was a member of the selection panel which was chaired by Professor Emanuele Viterbo. There were four candidates whose work was considered for the award. Both he and Professor Viterbo read the candidates' contributions to the literature and assessed those contributions on the merits. Ms Liang was chosen as the runner up to the successful candidate. 269 Dr Chen was not in a position to gainsay the evidence of Professor Rudman about the assessment process. This was because she had not read any of the publications which had been prepared by the other three candidates. In these circumstances there is no reason to doubt Professor Rudman's evidence that a bona fide assessment was made by the two committee members on which they were agreed. The basis of their assessment was academic merit and nothing else. This allegation must be rejected.

DISPOSITION 270 The application must be dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding two hundred and seventy (270) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tracey.