Ashleigh Sanders v Hamilton City Council [2026] NZERA 517

Hamilton Zoo's former senior manager subjected zookeeper Ashleigh Sanders to intrusive personal contact, out-of-hours messages, requests for information about colleagues, favouritism and career-related pressure. The Employment Relations Authority described the conduct as insidious and coming very close to sexual harassment. It found that Hamilton City Council had unjustifiably disadvantaged Ms Sanders and ordered $18,000 compensation, although her later constructive-dismissal claim was not established.

Work at Hamilton Zoo

Ms Sanders first attended the Zoo on student placement and became a permanent employee in November 2017. She worked across the ungulates, native species and primates sections. She had longstanding concerns about workload, late rosters, short staffing, management culture, training opportunities and animal welfare.

The Council was aware of wider cultural concerns at the Zoo and later took steps including roster changes, additional keeper positions, staff surveys, counselling support, animal-training assistance and revised structures. The successful grievance, however, centred on the conduct of a former senior manager referred to as “T”.

The senior manager's conduct

T initially served as operations manager and later became Zoo Director. Ms Sanders said he selected people for private communications, created a pseudo-safe space to encourage disclosures, remembered what people told him, and used information against others. Witness evidence supported an impression of favouritism and a workplace in which some staff felt watched or afraid to speak.

T began texting Ms Sanders late at night, initially about work, and sought personal contact after she separated from a partner who also worked at the Zoo. He discussed her former partner's work performance and his own personal life, asked her for coffee, and continued approaching her after she tried to create distance. At one point he messaged asking whether she missed him, accompanied by a winking emoji.

Ms Sanders gave contemporaneous accounts of T linking training and career progression to workplace relationships and favouritism. She recorded him saying that it did not matter how hard she worked because she would not progress if managers did not like her, while assuring her that because his relationship with her was good he would fight for her.

Insidious and almost sexual harassment

The Authority found Ms Sanders credible. There was no legitimate work reason for the level of personal and out-of-hours contact. She told T she did not want to discuss her personal life, but he persisted. It was also more likely than not that he sought information about other employees that could be used against them.

Ms Sanders was disadvantaged when she tried to impose boundaries. The evidence included delayed progression to full-time work, statements connecting career development to her personal relationships, and a possible threat to withdraw a funded innovation project after she raised concerns about fatigue and workload.

The Authority said the behaviour came very close to sexual harassment. Although there was no explicit sexual element, the invitation for coffee, persistent personal contact, use of managerial power, and assurance that the relationship would help her career gave the conduct an insidious quality. As the Zoo's senior manager, T's unjustifiable actions were attributable to the Council.

Why constructive dismissal failed

Ms Sanders resigned in December 2020, stating that her mental health was severely compromised and that she could no longer continue. T's employment with the Council had ended in October 2019, about 14 months earlier. Later managers provided support, arranged counselling and attempted to understand her concerns.

The Authority could not identify a sufficient causal link between breaches by the Council and the resignation so much later. It was also not proved that the Council should reasonably have foreseen a substantial risk of resignation at the relevant time. Ms Sanders had sought positive references before resigning and her immediate team leadership was described positively in her resignation email. Constructive dismissal was therefore not established.

Compensation for disadvantage

Ms Sanders described isolation, intense discomfort, intrusive questions and fear of reporting the Zoo's most senior manager. A colleague described seeing an excited and vibrant student become withdrawn and fearful of talking to others. The Authority separated as far as possible the harm caused by T's conduct from unrelated events and fixed compensation at $18,000.

Ms Sanders did not cause or contribute to T's behaviour in any blameworthy way. No contribution reduction was made. Because the dismissal claim failed, no lost-wages remedy was available.

Why this case matters

The case shows that an employee can lose a constructive-dismissal claim but still obtain substantial compensation for unjustifiable conduct during employment. It also illustrates how apparently informal attention from a senior manager can become coercive where professional opportunity, personal boundaries and organisational power are intertwined.

Read the full ERA determination (embedded)

If the embedded PDF does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.

Mobile / tablet tip: Some browsers do not display embedded PDFs reliably. Use the Open button above.

Source: Employment Relations Authority determination hosted on determinations.era.govt.nz.