2105AFE Business Law: Anti-Discrimination Problem Solving Assignment

This assignment presents a comprehensive analysis of an anti-discrimination case within the context of business law. It examines a scenario involving an employee, Meghan, who experiences potential discrimination related to her pregnancy, promotion, and subsequent job role. The analysis employs the ILAC method (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) to evaluate the legal aspects of the case, referencing relevant sections of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991. The document addresses key questions, including whether Meghan has a cause of action, potential forms of discrimination (direct and indirect), and the implications of sexual harassment and maternity leave. It also includes short answer questions addressing specific legal points, such as the commencement date of the Act, the concept of human rights for companies, relevant sections of legislation, and potential remedies for the affected party. The assignment concludes by exploring the concept of reasonable steps taken by employers to prevent discrimination and provides examples.

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

1BUSINESS LAW
ILAC Question
Issue
Whether any possible cause of action has been accrued to Meghan and if it has been
accrued, where to make a complaint.
Rule
Section 6 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 restricts any discrimination in the
workplace that has been extended to an employee. Section 7 of the Act mentions the grounds
of family responsibility, gender identity, sexuality, religious belief, breastfeeding, age,
relationship status, parental status, pregnancy, sex under which discrimination might occur.
Section 8 of the Act provides for right to the person so discriminated to avail remedy under
this Act.
Section 9 includes all forms of discrimination whether direct or indirect. The direct
discrimination has been defined under section 10 and that of indirect discrimination has been
defined under section 11.
Section 118 prohibits sexual harassment, the meaning of which has been provided under
section 119 of the Act. Sexual harassment implies a treatment towards a person, which was
less favourable based on the sex of the person. The same can be illustrated with the case of
Bennett v Everitt (1988). In this case, the employer was held liable for making sexual
comments, which were inappropriate.
The employer is under an obligation to take reasonable measures to avoid any form of
discrimination. Moreover, any less favourable treatment that has been extended towards a
person with respect to her employment by her employer owing to her pregnancy and

2BUSINESS LAW
maternity leave will be liable under this Act. This can be supported with the case of Fair
Work Ombudsman v WKO Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1129.
Application
In the present case, Meghan has applied for a promotion in the CBLAI. She has been
asked several question in the interview for the same. In responding to her interview questions,
she has disclosed her pregnancy. Upon this disclosure, she has been told by the HR that her
pregnancy is not relevant to her promotion and she should more focus on discussing about
her qualifications and experience. However, she overheard the senior executives to make
sexually inappropriate comments towards her being pregnant and the promotion has been
given to some other person who has similar qualifications as that of her. This can be treated
to be a discrimination under this Act. This can also be construed as sexual harassment.
Moreover, she has been demoted to an inferior job role after her return from the maternity
leave. Although the remuneration that has been provided to her remained the same, she was
not happy about the inferior job role she has been made to acquire. Meghan enquired about
the same to the HR and in response the HR contended that the same has been decided to
ensure the best interest of the company and enable her to cherish her motherhood properly.
Again, when she made a request to change her job role to a part-time one, she has been
refused the same. This can construed to be a discrimination owing to pregnancy and
maternity leave. This extends a right to take action to Meghan.
Conclusion
Meghan has possible cause of action with respect to the same.

3BUSINESS LAW
Short Question
Question 1
a)
27th February 2019
b)
No, a complaint cannot be lodged under this Act as the same will commence on 1st January
2020.
Question 2
a)
Section 11.
b)
Companies do not have human rights.
Question 3
a)
Section 7.
b)
Section 58.
Question 4
a)
First cause of action – compensation in relation to sexual harassment.
Second cause of action – damages for non-financial injury.

4BUSINESS LAW
b)
Brooker and Keating, The Queensland State School (State of Queensland).
Question 5
a)
The examples of reasonable steps are:
 To train the employees with respect to the compliance of the anti-discrimination
laws.
 To impose anti-discrimination policies.
b)
No, it was not followed.