Case claims 'unlawful treatment' due to worker's status as 'parent and carer'
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) recently dealt with the case of a casual employee who claimed she was unlawfully discriminated against because of her status as a parent and carer. According to VCAT, the worker believed she was dismissed from employment mainly due to her family and caring responsibilities, violating the Equal Opportunity Act 2010.
In its defence, the employer denied the worker’s allegations and claimed that her dismissal was due to her conduct issues at work.
Background of the case
The worker is a parent to two school-age children and has associated family responsibilities. On 13 July 2020, she suffered from a non-work-related foot injury.
On 14 July 2020, the worker informed her employer about the incident and then cancelled her shift for that day.
The worker explained that her foot was broken and she was waiting for further consultation at the hospital within 10 days.
However, on 19 July 2020, the worker received an email from her employer that said the business had already employed a new permanent staff member since 9 July 2020.
“On this basis, unfortunately I [sic] will be unable to offer you casual shifts as a Dental Assistant at the clinic,” the email said. “I thank-you for your contributions to the clinic and wish you the very best to you and the family.”
The worker claimed she was chosen as the casual for her to lose her work and was subjected “to unlawful discrimination because of the attributes of disability, sex and/or parental status or status as a carer,” VCAT said.
Meanwhile, the employer asserted that the dismissal was primarily due to the worker’s conduct, particularly her speaking in a bossy manner to a junior dental assistant and a senior dental nurse years earlier.
The tribunal noted that no written warning was issued to the employee as the business believed an informal conversation would suffice, and the action did not warrant formal disciplinary action.
The employer also said that the worker could have been safe from any potential dismissal “had she been available on weekends.”
VCAT’s decision
Despite the tribunals’ acknowledgment of the conduct issues surrounding the worker, it found that the worker’s family responsibilities and limited work availability were significant reasons for her dismissal.
VCAT said that the company violated sections 8 (1) and 18 (b) of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 as it treated the worker negatively mainly because of her status as a parent and carer.
Moreover, the dental clinic violated section 9(1) of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 for subjecting the employee to unlawful indirect discrimination based on her parental status and caring responsibilities.
Hence, the tribunal ordered the company to pay the casual employee $10,000 for economic loss and $2,000 for distress and humiliation.
