Business Law: Analysis of Anti-Discrimination Act and Case Study

This report analyzes a business law scenario involving potential discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991. The case revolves around Meghan, a mortgage broker at CBLAI, who experiences discriminatory treatment related to her pregnancy and subsequent employment conditions. The report examines the relevant sections of the Act, including direct and indirect discrimination, and the protections afforded to employees. It references the case of Allegretta v Phoenix Hotel (1991) to illustrate discriminatory practices. The analysis includes a step-by-step procedure for Meghan to address the discrimination, including internal communication, complaints to relevant commissions (Australian Human Rights Commission or Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland), and potential recourse to QCAT or QIRC. Furthermore, the report addresses short response questions concerning the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), defining human rights, and outlining the responsibilities of public entities. The conclusion suggests that a cause of action against CBLAI is likely, based on the presented facts and legal framework.

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.

2BUSINESS LAW
Firstly, the employee so discriminated will be required to initiate a communication with
the employer or any other person from whom the discrimination has been extended to the
employee. In case such a communication has failed to avail any result, the employee will be
required to approach the higher authorities of the employer. Next to that, the employee may
initiate a complaint to Australian Human Rights Commission or Anti-Discrimination
Commission Queensland. These commissions will strive to arrive at a settlement by way of a
process of conciliation. In case the process of conciliation has failed to avail remedy, the
employee may seek resort for a formal hearing in the Queensland Civil and Administrative
Tribunal (QCAT) or the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC).
In the case of Allegretta v Phoenix Hotel (1991), it has been held by the court that 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.
In the given case, Meghan has been working in the ‘Corrupt Banking Loans Australia
Incorporated’ (CBLAI) as a highly trained mortgage broker. Ten months ago she has been
interviewing for a promotion for the post of senior broker. She has been asked several
question during the interview. In this furtherance of the interview, it has came up that
Meghan is pregnant. In this context, the HR Kate has mentioned the topic of her pregnancy to
be irrelevant with respect to the job role she has been interviewing for. The HR insisted
Meghan to provide details regarding her qualifications and experience, which are more
relevant to the interview.
However, it has been overheard by Meghan that Charles on of the senior executives and
Williams has been commenting about her pregnancy and has laughing about the same. This
has been disappointing to Meghan, when she got to know that she has not be given the
promotion she has been interviewing for and the same has been given to some other person.
That person has the same qualification and experience as that of her. However, it has been
contended by the employer that the job has been given to the other person for his better
performance in the interview compared to the performance of Meghan. This act can be
construed to be discriminatory and the and the employer can be held liable under section of
the Act for denying promotion to Meghan for her being pregnant.
Again, Meghan has been on maternity leave for a short period just after this incident.
After she has returned from her maternity leave, she has been placed in a position, which is
inferior to the previous job position she has been working. However, the position to which
she has been demoted to, earns the same remuneration that she used to earn in her previous
job role. However, the new position that she has been given has made her very upset and she
seemed to have difficulty in adapting to the new inferior job role. Moreover, on her lodging a
complaint against the same to the HR, she has been assured that the decision of this change of
job role has been decided to ensure the best interest of the company and to provide her with
the opportunity to balance between her work and motherhood. But on the application for a
part time job role, she has been denied the same for. This can be construed to be a
discriminatory treatment extended towards Meghan owing to her pregnancy. The same can be
illustrated with the case of Allegretta v Phoenix Hotel (1991).
In this case, Meghan has attempted to communicate the matter with the employer and has
not been addressed properly by them. In such a situation, Meghan can initiate a complaint to
Australian Human Rights Commission or Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland.
These commissions will strive to arrive at a settlement by way of a process of conciliation. In
case the process of conciliation has failed to avail remedy, Meghan may seek resort for a

3BUSINESS LAW
formal hearing in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) or the
Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC).
Conclusion
On the balance of probabilities, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal
(QCAT) would find that there exists a cause of action against CBLAI pertaining to Meghan
in relation to the given situation under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991. The above
mentioned procedure needs to be followed if Meghan resolves to proceed with the matter.

4BUSINESS LAW
Short Response Question
Answer 1
a)
The Queensland Parliament has passed the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) on the 27th day
of February of the year 2019.
b)
The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) will be applicable from the 1st day of January of the
year 2020 and it is not possible presently to make complaint under the same.
Answer 2
a)
Under section 11 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) contains provisions stating that
individuals possess human rights.
b)
It is not possible for a company to have human rights.
Answer 3
a)
The definition of human rights has been provided under section 7 of Human Rights Act
2019 (Qld).
b)
Section 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) makes it unlawful for a public entity to
act or make a decision in a way that is not compatible with human rights.
Answer 4
a)
The two causes of action presented by the applicant in the case were injury of non-
financial nature caused by virtue of sexual harassment and discrimination of unlawful nature.
b)
The Department of Education and Training and the school groundsman were held liable
for the unlawful acts.
Answer 5
a)
The reasonable steps that the employer could have taken to avoid vicarious liability are:
1. Proper training given to the employees with respect to discrimination.
2. Imposing of stringent anti-discrimination policies to prevent discrimination.
b)
The principle for awarding compensation from the Federal Court case of Richardson v
Oracle Corporation Australia Pty Ltd [2014] was followed in Green’s case.