A blueprint of how not to handle pregnancy, parental leave, and breastfeeding at work
On 17 February 2026, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia handed down judgment in Duarte v United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs [2026] FedCFamC2G 175, a Fair Work case that should sit on every HR leader's reading list.
The worker, employed as a waiter at the Melbourne Consulate of the United Arab Emirates from 2 July 2018 until her employment was terminated on 1 November 2021, took her former employer to court over how it handled her pregnancy, parental leave, breastfeeding needs, and eventual dismissal. While the proceedings were initially brought against the Consulate-General, the court granted leave to substitute the United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs as the proper respondent, on the basis that the Ministry was her actual employer and that foreign state immunity did not apply to employment contracts made or performed in Australia.
Her account, set out in the statement of claim, traces a familiar HR timeline that went badly wrong. After falling pregnant in April 2020, she told the Consul General, Dr Al Mulla, in early May 2020. In early November 2020, she asked to take 14 weeks of paid maternity leave. A later request to start parental leave in late December 2020 was refused, and she was directed to begin earlier, on 1 December 2020. A further request on 1 March 2021 for an additional 20 weeks of unpaid parental leave was also refused.
When she returned to work on 24 May 2021, things didn't improve. She was required to regularly express and store breastmilk for her infant, but the Consul General required her to do so in a storeroom and refused to provide facilities to store the milk, leaving her to keep it in a suitcase filled with ice.
On 18 June 2021, her request to finish at 2pm instead of 4pm so she could care for her son was refused. Ten days later, on 28 June 2021, she was directed to take annual leave. On 7 July 2021, she was told her hours would be reduced to 11am–4pm on her return, and on 20 August 2021 she was advised her salary would drop to match. On 1 November 2021, she was called into a meeting and told her role was redundant, with a termination payment of $13,391.92.
The Ministry didn't file a defence. Its solicitors appeared but had no instructions to contest the claims, and Judge Corbett proceeded to assess the case on the evidence before the court.
The court found the Ministry had taken adverse action against the worker for exercising her workplace rights, discriminated against her because of her sex and breastfeeding, and breached the National Employment Standards by refusing unpaid parental leave. Judge Corbett grouped the conduct into five distinct acts: refusing parental leave on her terms, denying the extension of unpaid parental leave, failing to provide adequate breastfeeding facilities, refusing flexible working arrangements, and terminating her on 1 November 2021.
On the human cost, the judge was blunt: "The humiliation of breastfeeding in a storeroom and storing milk in a suitcase is obvious, so too the stress caused by irregular and uncertain work hours when trying to care for an infant."
Evidence from a clinical psychologist confirmed she "experienced high levels of stress within her workplace and showed symptoms of prolonged chronic stressors and discrimination experienced whilst working for the respondent."
The Ministry was ordered to pay $48,190.46 for economic loss, $25,000 for non-economic loss, a pecuniary penalty of $100,000, interest of $25,106.53, and costs of $4,960, bringing the total to just over $203,000. The penalty is payable directly to the worker, and the full amount is due within 28 days.
The decision is a working checklist of what not to do when an employee becomes a parent. Parental leave requests need to be handled on the employee's reasonable terms. Breastfeeding employees need proper facilities, not a storeroom and a suitcase of ice. Flexible work requests deserve genuine consideration. And reducing hours, cutting pay, or making a role redundant after these requests will attract close scrutiny as possible adverse action, regardless of how the paperwork is dressed up.
