Glynn -V- Gillette Australia Pty. Limited [1996] NSWEOT

Glynn -V- Gillette Australia Pty. Limited [1996] NSWEOT

The respondent's predominant reason for rejecting the complainant's application for Account Executive was that it sought someone with greater sales expertise, but the complainant's pregnancy and imminent maternity leave were also factors in the peremptory rejection of her application. That amounted to unlawful discrimination under Section 25(2)(b) of the Anti-discrimination Act, and Section 25(1A) did not apply. However, the complainant suffered no economic loss because better qualified persons were available and she would not have been appointed even if properly considered. The claim concerning failure to provide full time work or constructive dismissal failed because the complainant did...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 September 1996
Procedural Posture
Complaint Referred to the Equal Opportunity Tribunal by the Anti Discrimination Board Alleging Discrimination on the Ground of Sex/pregnancy in Employment / Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Complaint upheld in part; damages awarded for hurt feelings; claim concerning return to full time employment dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['sex Discrimination' 'pregnancy Discrimination' 'promotion' 'maternity Leave' 'constructive Dismissal' 'damages']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'employment Law'] ['sex Discrimination' 'pregnancy Discrimination' 'promotion' 'maternity Leave' 'constructive Dismissal' 'damages']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Complaint Referred to the Equal Opportunity Tribunal by the Anti Discrimination Board Alleging Discrimination on the Ground of Sex/pregnancy in Employment / Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent unlawfully discriminated against the complainant on the ground of sex/pregnancy by rejecting her application for the Account Executive position' "Whether the complainant's complaint about denial of promotion fell under Section 25(1) or Section 25(2) of the Anti-discrimination Act" "Whether Section 25(1A) of the Anti-discrimination Act rendered the respondent's conduct lawful" 'Whether the respondent unlawfully discriminated against the complainant by failing to provide full time employment at the end of maternity leave or constructively dismissing her' 'Whether the complainant suffered economic loss or was entitled only to damages for hurt feelings']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's predominant reason for rejecting the complainant's application for Account Executive was that it sought someone with greater sales expertise, but the complainant's pregnancy and imminent maternity leave were also factors in the peremptory rejection of her application. That amounted to unlawful discrimination under Section 25(2)(b) of the Anti-discrimination Act, and Section 25(1A) did not apply. However, the complainant suffered no economic loss because better qualified persons were available and she would not have been appointed even if properly considered. The claim concerning failure to provide full time work or constructive dismissal failed because the complainant did...

Court Disposition

Complaint upheld in part; damages awarded for hurt feelings; claim concerning return to full time employment dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The Tribunal awards the complainant the sum of $1,000 damages.' 'The Tribunal dismisses the part of the claim alleging constructive dismissal or failure to provide full time employment after maternity leave.' 'No order as to costs.']