Unlawful Termination Assistance Centre
Pregnancy discrimination

Scenario #1: A woman complained that her employer suddenly became critical of her work when she told him she was pregnant, and she had to take stress leave. In conciliation it was agreed that it was not viable for her to return to the job, but the employer agreed to give her a statement of performance and a payment for lost wages.

Scenario #2: The NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal has found the North Coast Area Health Service indirectly discriminated against a heavily pregnant blood collector by failing to provide her with light duties. Additionally it found NCAHS was not properly prepared to deal with the needs of pregnant employees.
The bench pointed out that the NCAHS was prepared to provide light duties to employees on workers compensation and accommodate those within its budget constraints, but not to pregnant employees. It said it wasn't good enough for the employer to merely impose the discriminatory requirement that the employee continue with her normal duties. Before imposing such a requirement NRAHS was required to do more in the circumstances than to say, in effect, "there is no policy, there are no vacancies, there is no money, and there is no legal requirement" (to accommodate the request for light duties.)

The bench said that imposing the requirement had no "logical and understandable basis", for the following reasons:

The Health Service has been ordered to pay $7500 in compensation. Jordan v North Coast Area Health Service (No 2) [2005] NSWADT 258



To discuss your circumstances, telephone us on (02) 9436 - 1286 or e-mail us at info@utac.com.au