By NATASHA HARRIS
A Complaints Review Tribunal ruling in favour of a pregnant woman has been overturned in the High Court at Auckland.
Chrissi Anderson, an Auckland legal executive, was awarded $8000 in March last year when the tribunal found that her employer, Claymore Law, had indirectly discriminated against her
because she was pregnant.
Indirect discrimination occurs when an employer imposes a condition of employment that is not discriminatory in itself, but has the effect of discriminating against an employee.
If the ruling had remained it could have broadened the definition of discrimination, particularly in the case of pregnant workers.
However Justice John Priestley threw out the tribunal finding saying it was "unsafe, erroneous, contrary to the evidence and cannot stand".
"The decision could not be one reached by reason of Ms Anderson's pregnancy because the decision-makers were totally unaware of her pregnancy," Justice Priestley said.
"This is, bluntly speaking, not a suitable case to set precedents in that area."
Ms Anderson was working part-time for Claymore Law in September 2000 and on the day she told her employer, Greg Barclay, she was pregnant she was told her position was to be disestablished.
She was offered a full-time senior secretarial role but was unable to take it because of family commitments.
She complained unsuccessfully to the Human Rights Commission on the grounds of both direct and indirect discrimination.
When she took her case to the review tribunal it ruled in her favour but Claymore Law appealed the case to the High Court in March last year.
Greg Barclay, a partner in Claymore Law, said: "We feel delighted that this didn't become a precedent ... but we feel a little disappointed that the issue required the determination of the High Court.
"The evidence and facts surrounding the allegation never stood up and the reality is that we made a decision for commercial reasons to restructure."
Chris Patterson, Ms Anderson's lawyer, said his client was very upset with the judgment but he had not had a chance to discuss further action with her.
"My client is very upset about it which is quite understandable because effectively the court has put the country about 50 years back as far as human rights go."
