Business Law

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1BUSINESS LAW
Hypothetical ILAC Question
Issue
The issue arising from the instant scenario is whether there exists any cause of action
against CBLAI pertaining to Meghan in relation to the given situation under the Anti-
Discrimination Act 1991. Whether there is any prescribed procedure that needs to be
followed if Meghan resolves to proceed with the matter.
Rule
Allegretta v Phoenix Hotel (1991) - any less favourable when extended to an employee
owing to her pregnancy will be treated to be discriminatory and the employer extending such
discrimination will be held liable.
Application
The workers are extended protection against any discriminatory conduct that has been
initiated to them within the furtherance of their employment by their employer by virtue of
the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991. Under section 6, the Act renders any discriminatory
treatment or any hindrance to extend equal opportunity for discriminatory purposes given
towards the workers to be unlawful. This section puts a restriction upon the employers to
subject any of their workers to discrimination based on the grounds mentioned under present
Act. This section also extends a right towards the worker so discriminated to make a
complaint against such a discrimination. It also provides for the procedures and the agencies
that are required to be pursued by the worker in case a discriminatory treatment has been
extended towards him.
There has been a mention of sixteen grounds that has been provided in the Act by virtue of
section 7, based on which are person can be made to face discrimination and such an act of
discrimination will be construed to be unlawful under this Act. These grounds of
discrimination that has been provided under this Act are family responsibility, connection
with a particular person, gender identity, relation with trade union, sexuality, impairment,
beliefs in relation to religion, political viewpoint, breastfeeding, race, parental status,
pregnancy, relationship status, sex and age. Any discriminatory treatment that has been
initiated depending upon these grounds will be treated as unlawful.
This Act prohibits any treatment that has been given to an employee, which can be
construed to be discriminatory in any of its form, direct or indirect with respect to any of the
attributes of features provided and renders it actionable by virtue of section 8. Section 9 has
mentioned both direct and indirect discrimination to be unlawful and actionable. The
definition of direct discrimination has been provided under section 10 of the Act. When a
person has been extended with any conduct by the employer which has made the employee
feel less favourable compared to others for the reason of his attachment to a particular class
or attribute, it is to be construed as direct discrimination. The definition of indirect
discrimination has been provided under section 11 of the Act. An act can be treated to be
indirect discrimination when the employer has imposed certain policy, which seems to be
affecting a particular person or a particular class of persons more than the others and in a
detrimental manner.
Section 15 renders any form of discrimination with respect to different working
conditions, refusal to avail promotion, benefits, transfer or training that has been given to a
worker within the scope or in furtherance of his employment to be restricted under this Act. It
also restricts an employer from indulging into activities that will amount to discriminatory or
will be treated to be less favourable from the viewpoint of discrimination.