Acorp Pty Ltd - Pregnancy Based Discrimination

Q1. How was the director discriminated against? What laws apply to this case?

Mrs Rogers, director of Acorp Pty Ltd, was discriminated against performing managerial responsibilities while pregnant. The direct discrimination was clearly presented when Mrs Rogers was given less skilled/demanding work and when she was made casual employee without being consulted.

The Laws which apply to this case are the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the Human Rights Commission Act 1986 and the Fair Work Australia Act 2009.

According to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), it is considered discrimination when a person discriminates another person by “a characteristic that appertains generally to persons of the sex of the aggrieved person”. It applies to the study case as pregnancy is a characteristic that appertains specifically to women.

The Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) states that discrimination includes “any distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin, which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation”. This Act applies to the study case because Mrs Rogers gender was, according to the senior director, impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in her previous job position as a direct manager.

According to the Fair Work Act 2009 (‘FW Act’), it is considered an unfair dismissal if “the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable”. Mrs Rogers dismissal was harsh once there was no valid reason for the dismissal and the dismissal was related to unsatisfactory performance by the person but no warning has been issued before dismissal.

Q2. What stereotypical assumptions might the employers making about pregnancy and