Discrimination cases note

Cases

Discrimination cases note

Two complaints based on discrimination - one involving pregnancy and playing competition sport, the other involving age discrimination and the retirement of a senior officer in the navy - were decided for the complainant in the first and against the complainant in the second.

WantToReadMore

Get unlimited access to all of our content.

 

Two complaints based on discrimination - one involving pregnancy and playing competition sport, the other involving age discrimination and the retirement of a senior officer in the navy - were decided for the complainant in the first and against the complainant in the second.
 
Pregnancy discrimination
 
The magistrate found that an act of discrimination occurred when a competition netball player was prevented from playing in a trophy competition by officials while she was pregnant. The magistrate rejected the argument that the netball association came within an exemption provided in the federal sex discrimination legislation.
 
The exemption was limited to the organisation's relationship with its members and did not extend to competition players.
 
The magistrate declared that the organisation discriminated against the employee pursuant to ss. 7 and 22 of the Sex Discrimination Act by preventing her from playing netball matches in the trophy on 29 June, 7 July and 13 July 2001.
 
The court ordered the organisation to pay the employee the sum of $6,750 by way of agreed damages plus costs.
 
See: Gardner v AANA Ltd [2003] FMCA 81 - Federal Magistrate Raphael - 13 March 2003.
 
Clash of age discrimination and public sector retirement
 
Extended litigation continued before a Full Court of the Federal Court on a claim by the Navy's former director of psychology. The Full Court refused to extend his employment beyond the usual retirement age (65 years), as specified in the relevant legislation.
 
The Full Court considered the appeal to be flawed. The employee had previously argued that officers of similar age were fair comparison in relation to his argument that he had suffered age discrimination and now argued all executive officers were the benchmark.
 
In addition, the way the employee framed his appeals had effectively relied upon an earlier judgement of Justice Wilcox in the Federal Court in previous appeals, and he now sought to challenge that judgement. The Court would refuse discretionary relief in these circumstances.
 
See: Peacock v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [2003] FCAFC 50 (25 March 2003) - Full Court of Federal Court (Kiefel, North and Allsop JJ).
Post details