Judge sets a cap on legal costs to allow teacher to pursue alleged racial, sex and pregnancy discrimination case against employer
A teacher (‘the applicant’) in a New South Wales Islamic School, who was also an Acting Principal, has alleged through her lawyer that members of the school board and fellow employees (‘the respondents’) subjected her to sex, racial and pregnancy discrimination.
According to the court pleadings, the teacher was told that:
- she should stay at home look after her children like women should do;
- she was just another Arab on workers compensation;
- she would never be hired as a deputy principal because it’s a man’s job;
- it was good that she was pregnant, because that’s what women were made for;
- she was a stupid woman and her job could be taken from her at any moment; and
- females were not suited to the work, and this is what happens when women are allocated such work.
This is not a full list of the allegations, but it certainly outlines the seriousness of the allegations and if proven, why the teacher would want to take action to defend herself against her employer.
Legal costs can prevent action be taken by the victim
In the court pleadings, the ‘respondent’ asserted that there was no public interest in the litigation (with regards to fixed costs).
In response, ‘The Court rejects the respondent’s assertion that there is no public interest in the litigation. Parliament has made it clear by introducing the cross-protection provisions outlined above that it is necessary to adopt an equal access approach, the Explanatory Memorandum at [31] states
…. as the current cost regime can deter victimless survivors of sexual and other forms of discrimination from commencing legal proceedings. This creates an access to justice concern, particularly for vulnerable members of the community.’
Legal costs and court fees can be a barrier to an ‘applicant’ pursuing the alleged offenders through the judicial process if the ‘respondent’ has greater financial resources.
Federal Circuit and Family Court Judge Doug Humphreys set the maximum recoverable costs at $40,000, noting that few individuals could afford more than $200,000 in legal fees.
Judge Humphreys noted that “The Court does not consider that, the applicant’s claims, at this preliminary stage, can be described as either frivolous or vexatious. The allegations are serious and involve multiple forms, if proven, of unlawful discrimination.”
The case is scheduled for a 5-day hearing May 5, 2025.
Source: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FedCFamC2G/2024/1023.html
