Jayasinghe – a lecturer in health and biomedical science – sought reinstatement and back pay from the date of his dismissal, claiming his sacking was unfair. This, however, failed to come to fruition as the FWC deemed the actions and conduct of the lecturer as “egregious”.

Commissioner Tim Lee found that the “power imbalance” intertwined with the “delusional” level of denial regarding the numerous substantiated allegations placed against Jayasinghe led to the FWC confirming that he had, in fact, committed serious misconduct.

The litany of allegations paints a very harrowing picture of Jayasinghe persistently pursuing a romantic relationship with the student. Through WhatsApp messages and face-to-face interactions, Jayasinghe made sexualised comments saying the student was “sexy” and could “start an OnlyFans” if she developed a “big bum” from gym workouts.

He also said words to the effect of: “You collaborate with me on research papers, but you won’t collaborate in the bedroom with me.”

VIEW ALL

Along with these comments, Jayasinghe repeatedly pressured her into meeting outside work hours under the guise of “professional discussions”. He also made numerous requests for long hugs, which included instances where the student attempted to pull away, to which Jayasinghe insisted on continuing the embrace – Hill found this constituted sexual misconduct.

On a professional level, Jayasinghe habitually crossed the line – often using his position as leverage to formulate a closer relationship with the student by referencing potential PhD and career opportunities for her. The student was constantly invited back to Jayasinghe’s house on the false pretence that it was for work purposes.

This once culminated in Jayasinghe asking the student if he could kiss her while she was at his house. Despite the objections of the student, he also spent $190 on perfume, which he gifted to her shortly after her birthday.

As the repetitive nature of this conduct occurred, the student explicitly rejected his advances, proclaiming she only wanted a “professional relationship”. This was mentioned both in person and over WhatsApp.

The evidence showed that Jayasinghe’s conduct had a “devastating” impact on the student, who experienced a “constant state of stress”, leading to her losing “around 5 to 6 kilograms” as the stress impacted her eating habits.

Despite the accurate recollection of Jayasinghe’s conduct by the student, he rarely admitted to or agreed with her description of these events. In fact, he labelled her reflections as “concocted and fanciful”, “baseless”, “unfounded and fictional”, “delusional”, “fabricated”, and directly reflective of the student’s “unsettled state of mind”.

Hill found that pertaining to the numerous allegations cited in the evidence, Jayasinghe was dishonest.

“I am satisfied that [Jayasinghe] has failed to accept accountability for his actions and has also attempted to dishonestly ‘re-characterise’ the nature and context of his interactions to exculpate himself,” Hill said.

“[Jayasinghe’s] chosen responses to the allegations demonstrate; a) total denial of wrongdoing; b) failure to take any responsibility for his behaviour; and c) total ignorance for the level of seriousness of his conduct in circumstances where he was in a position of trust with respect to the [university] and power with respect to [the student].”

In reaching his decision on the application, Hill made the correlation that Jayasinghe’s dishonesty throughout the process makes it “unsafe” for him to be reinstated to his position.

“For [Jayasinghe to] give evidence to this effect, in all the circumstances of this case, demonstrates either a level of delusion which makes it unsafe for [him] to ever be in a position of working closely with students (or staff) of the [university] or that [he] is prepared to say anything, regardless of whether he believes it to be true or not, in an attempt to exculpate himself for his conduct towards [the student].

“The gravity of the misconduct which the [lecturer] engaged in combined with his lack of insight into his behaviour weigh more significantly against a finding the dismissal was unfair than the procedural failings and personal and economic consequences.”

“I am satisfied that the dismissal of [Jayasinghe] was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable because there were valid reasons for the dismissal ... The application is dismissed,” Hill said.

This case is Sisitha Jayasinghe v University of Tasmania (U2024/5275).