Economist sacked for student misconduct sues university over ‘ageism’

He cited the investigator’s report that noted he “is decades older than [the student] – she is approximately 21-23 and he 60-plus” and he “is an experienced, mature, ‘worldly’ individual. [The student] is young not only in biological age, but in terms of experience …”

Members of the university also considered he had “old school” attributes because of his age, he claimed.

Mr Martin is disputing the independence of the university’s investigator, who allegedly told him her approach was “guilty until proven innocent”, did not interview witnesses or some alleged victims and failed to give weight to evidence the student was lying.

He claims the university knew of some of the alleged conduct as far back as early 2017 but never reprimanded him or advised him of it until more than five years later.

Meetings a joint decision

While his application and statement of claim did not specify the alleged behaviour, the documents revealed the most recent incident involved Mr Martin lunching with the student over wine at La Spaghettata restaurant and meeting her in parks.

However, Mr Martin said he had proffered “irrefutable evidence” that the student initiated the lunch and also submitted bank records and a statement from the restaurant owner to deny he poured her wine or that she consumed an excessive amount of alcohol.

Meetings with the student at parks was due to a joint decision to “prevent the spread of COVID-19”, according to his statement of claim.

The student’s string of messages to him, including telling him “happy new year to my favourite lecturer” and gifting him a bottle of champagne and Christmas thank you card, also proved she did not find any conduct to be unwelcome, he said.

He claimed his entire correspondence with the student was confined to five areas: her studies; organising two lunches and four meetings; advice for her friend on maths courses; food and recipes; and “talking about pussycats”.

Right to complain

The university’s substantiation of his other allegedly inappropriate behaviour with students was implausible, he argued.

The oldest allegation dated back to a function in 2015 that the university said involved a “young Asian woman, likely a student” but who was “unknown” and unable to be interviewed.

A 2017 allegation involving dinner with an overseas student was known to the university’s hiring committee at the time but not acted on, Mr Martin said, meaning, if it had happened, the university “knowingly put the health and safety of other students at risk”.

The alleged victim in that incident was never interviewed, he said, nor was another overseas student at an alleged dinner incident in February 2017.

An alleged victim in a November 2019 incident, which took place at a Papa Gino’s pizza restaurant, was also not interviewed, he said.

While Mr Martin complained about the independence and process in the first investigation, a second investigation upheld its findings.

Mr Martin, represented by law firm McDonald Murholme, is alleging his sacking was in part because he exercised his right to complain and because of his age.

He is seeking damages including $400,000 for two years of lost income, $60,000 for hurt and humiliation, and more for lost reputation, and “loss of opportunity to secure valuable professional and personal acknowledgement (eg an order of Australia honour)”.