The partner and former associate of a Tasmanian Supreme Court judge has lodged a formal complaint against the court, saying she was "belittled" and "shamed" out of her job after their relationship was made public.
In January last year, a photograph of Justice Gregory Geason "embracing" his then-associate Sarah Gregory in a Hobart nightclub was published by Tasmanian media.
In a statement at the time, a spokesman for Chief Justice Alan Blow said the chief justice had counselled Justice Geason in relation to the allegations concerning his behaviour and actions had been taken to protect the reputation of the court.
The statement also said Ms Gregory had been provided with information as to all the options and offered support.
But Ms Gregory's lawyer, Josh Bornstein, said she was unhappy with her treatment.
"In addition, she was told she'd engaged in misconduct and generally she was belittled and shamed."
Ms Gregory was told she had "brought the court into disrepute" and was to be moved to another justice. She left the court before that could ever happen, and has not returned to the legal profession.
"She was very distressed by the publication of that photograph and the punishment she received afterwards convinced her that she couldn't continue in the court," Mr Bornstein said.
Now Ms Gregory has lodged a formal complaint with Equal Opportunity Tasmania, alleging she was wrongfully accused of misconduct, "humiliated" and discriminated against for having a consensual sexual relationship.
She is also saying that she is being treated differently to her partner, Justice Geason, because she is a young woman.
"Even in a consensual relationship … it's our client who has effectively lost her job, been shamed very publicly and had her career and health very badly damaged by this process.
"The judge remains in the same position as he has been always."
Claim yet to be accepted by Equal Opportunity Tasmania
Mr Bornstein also said the Supreme Court should have "fair and transparent processes" in place to manage matters such as "conflicts of interest arising from consensual relationships in the workplace".
"Instead of responding with some commonsense about the need to consult about how to manage a consensual relationship at work, it was treated as a disciplinary matter," he said.
As to whether or not the relationship between the Supreme Court justice and his associate was "inappropriate", Mr Bornstein said that was not a matter for the law.
"A 30-year-old woman and an older male judge, if they're in a consensual relationship, I suppose the question of whether it's inappropriate is a moral question," he said.
"That's for others to make their own moral assessments. But the legal position is very different.
Ms Gregory's claim has yet to be accepted by Equal Opportunity Tasmania. It falls just outside of the 12-month window, but the commission has the discretion to accept older complaints.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Justice said the department did not comment on individual matters of this nature.
