Video | Agriculture | Confidence | Economy | Energy | Employment | Finance | Media | Property | RBNZ | Science | SOEs | Tax | Technology | Telecoms | Tourism | Transport | Search


High Court Rejects Unsafe Discrimination Ruling

High Court Rejects "Unsafe, Erroneous" Discrimination Ruling


For Immediate Release: 8 May 2003

High Court Rejects "Unsafe, Erroneous" Discrimination Ruling

A unanimous judgement by the High Court in Auckland has overturned a ruling which could have broadened the risk to employers of unwarranted discrimination claims.

Commenting on the ruling by the Complaints Review Tribunal, High Court Judge, John Priestley, yesterday sharply criticised the Tribunal's decision, saying it was "unsafe, erroneous, contrary to the evidence and cannot stand".

The case involved Auckland law firm Claymore Law and a former part-time employee, Chrissi Anderson. Anderson, having taken legal advice, had laid a complaint with the Human Rights Commission alleging that she had been made redundant as a result of announcing her pregnancy. She claimed that she had been discriminated against.

The Human Right Commission, after considering the matter, decided there were no grounds for pursuing it further. Anderson then took her claim direct to the Complaints Review Tribunal, which was presided over at that stage by Susan Bathgate.

In a majority decision, the Tribunal found that Claymore Law had breached the Human Rights Act, finding that Claymore had directly discriminated against Anderson, whom, the Tribunal said, had been made redundant because of her pregnancy.

The Tribunal also found that Claymore had indirectly discriminated against Anderson, because, in deciding it needed a full-time as opposed to part-time staff member, Claymore had effectively ruled Anderson out of contention because of her child care commitments.

A strongly dissenting judgment, stating that Claymore Law had not breached the Human Rights Act, was submitted by one member of the three-person Tribunal.

Claymore Law subsequently appealed the Tribunal's decision to the High Court.

Judge Priestly yesterday described the Tribunal majority's decision regarding the alleged dismissal because of the pregnancy as "not open to it on the facts".

"The Tribunal had before it undisputed factual matters which prevented it from safely reaching the conclusion it did ... the reasoning process is both unconvincing and unsafe. It could not be a decision reached by reason of Ms Anderson's pregnancy because the decision makers were totally unaware of her pregnancy," he said.

The High Court also found the Tribunal majority's reasoning process to be unsatisfactory regarding the claim of indirect discrimination under S.65 of the Human Rights Act and said that this reasoning did not justify a finding of indirect discrimination.

Judge Priestly added that the case was "bluntly speaking, ... not a suitable case to set precedents in that area".

The Court went on to say that "Ms Anderson's employment was terminated not as a result of indirect discrimination under S.65 but by her own actions".

Claymore Law's Principal, Greg Barclay, says that he feels relieved and vindicated by the decision but disappointed that an issue which, on the facts, should never have required High Court determination, has taken almost three years to resolve. "We are also pleased that the Tribunal's decision has not become a legal landmark because of the far-reaching implications this would have had for employers generally," he adds.


© Scoop Media

Business Headlines | Sci-Tech Headlines


Media Mega Merger: StuffMe Hearing Argues Over Moveable Feast

New Zealand's two largest news publishers are appealing against the Commerce Commission's rejection of the proposal to merge their operations. More>>


Approval: Northern Corridor Decision Released

The approval gives the green light to construction of the last link of Auckland’s Western Ring Route, providing an alternative route from South Auckland to the North Shore. More>>


Crown Accounts: $4.1 Billion Surplus

The New Zealand Government has achieved its third fiscal surplus in a row with the Crown accounts for the year ended 30 June 2017 showing an OBEGAL surplus of $4.1 billion, $2.2 billion stronger than last year, Finance Minister Steven Joyce says. More>>


Mycoplasma Bovis: One New Property Tests Positive

The newly identified property... was already under a Restricted Place notice under the Biosecurity Act. More>>

Accounting Scandal: Suspension Of Fuji Xerox From All-Of-Government Contract

General Manager of New Zealand Government Procurement John Ivil says, “FXNZ has been formally suspended from the Print Technology and Associated Services (PTAS) contract and terminated from the Office Supplies contract.” More>>