Court finds employee dismissed because of pregnancy

24 July 2017

#Workplace Relations & Safety

Andrew Knott

Published by Andrew Knott

Court finds employee dismissed because of pregnancy

The case is Mahajan v Burgess Rawson and Associates [2017] FCCA 1560, 7 July 2017.

Statutory context

Section 351 of the FairWork Act provides that an employer “must not take adverse action against a person who is an employee” on various grounds, one of which is “pregnancy”.

Section 352 provides that an employer “must not dismiss an employee because the employee is temporarily absent from work because of illness or injury of a kind prescribed by the regulations”.

Section 360 provides that for the purposes of those provisions “a person takes action for a particular reason if the reasons for the action include that reason”.

Section 361 reverses the onus of proof by providing that in certain (relevant to this case) circumstances it is “presumed that the action was, or is being, taken for that reason or with that intent, unless the person proves otherwise”.

Relevant facts

The employee commenced employment on 7 December 2015 as an administrative assistant with a commercial property real estate agency. In late January 2016 she learnt that she was pregnant. She informed a senior officer of the employer of the pregnancy in early March. On 3 June 2016, the last working day before her probation period expired, she was dismissed.

Between early March 2016 and dismissal on 3 June 2016 she took a total of seven days sick leave due to morning sickness (providing appropriate medical certificates) and in addition took four days of annual leave to attend medical appointments related to her pregnancy.

She acknowledged that she was late to work six or seven times (on other occasions) during the period March to June 2016 and that on most of those occasions she was only five or ten minutes late and would make up the time at the end of the day. The employer’s representative said that he understood that the lateness on those occasions was due to public transport difficulties.

The employer’s case was that the reasons for the decision were the employee’s poor performance and poor punctuality. The fact that she was pregnant and intended to take maternity leave and had taken sick leave from time to time formed no part of the reasons for the decision.

Significant allegations by the employee

The employee claimed that during the dismissal meeting she was told “Due to your current circumstances, your employment has become unreliable and we have decided not to continue your employment.”

Findings by the Court

Judge Riley of the Federal Circuit Court found that though “denied by the employer’s representative” those words were said at the meeting and at that the words “Due to your current circumstances” could “only refer to the Applicant’s pregnancy”. The Judge said that it “beggars belief” that the employer would have said that the employee had become unreliable on the basis of the lateness for work discussed above and that “I consider that the Respondent has failed to discharge the reverse onus in relation to the pregnancy ground. That is, I consider that a significant and substantial reason for the Respondent dismissing the Applicant was her pregnancy”. Later the Judge said “Rather, I consider that (the employer’s representative) viewed the Applicant as unreliable because she was frequently absent from work on personal or annual leave, due to pregnancy related illness” and the dismissal was “because of what he perceived as her unreliability consisting of her frequent absences on personal or annual leave, due to pregnancy related illness. I simply do not believe his evidence to the contrary”.

Accordingly the court concluded that it was satisfied that the employer dismissed the employee because she was pregnant and took personal and annual leave and was temporarily absent from work due to illness or injury. The court rules that there would be appropriate declarations and that the parties would be heard on consequential orders.

Lessons for employers

Community standards enshrined in the law make it critical that employers manage such situations with an acceptance of those values, and that they ensure that their decision making processes are consistent with those legal obligations

There is a particular vulnerability in such circumstances because of the reverse onus of proof

In addition to legal obligations, there are clearly potential serious reputational risks to employers whose behaviour is thought to be (or as in this case judicially determined to be) inconsistent with the values of the community enshrined in such laws.

AuthorAndrew Knott



Rachel Drew, Partner
T: +61 7 3135 0617
E: rachel.drew@holdingredlich.com


Charles Power, Partner
T: +61 3 9321 9942
E: charles.power@holdingredlich.com

Benjamin Marshall, Partner
T: +61 3 9321 9864
E: ben.marshall@holdingredlich.com


Stephen Trew, Managing Partner, Sydney
T: +61 2 8083 0439
E: stephen.trew@holdingredlich.com

Michael Selinger, Partner
T: +61 2 8083 0430
E: michael.selinger@holdingredlich.com

The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this publication is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. We are not responsible for the information of any source to which a link is provided or reference is made and exclude all liability in connection with use of these sources.

Andrew Knott

Published by Andrew Knott

Share this