Grulke v K C Canvas Pty Ltd

Case [2000] FCA 1415


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Grulke v K C Canvas Pty Ltd ACN 057 228 850 [2000] FCA 1415

RYAN J
MELBOURNE
29 SEPTEMBER 2000


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V291 of 2000

BETWEEN:

LEANNE GRULKE
Applicant

AND:

K C CANVAS PTY LTD ACN 057 228 850
Respondent

JUDGE:

RYAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

29 SEPTEMBER 2000

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS:

1.THAT IT BE DECLARED that the respondent has committed unlawful discrimination against the applicant in contravention of s 14 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth).

2.THAT the respondent pay to the applicant damages by way of compensation for loss or damage suffered by the applicant by reason of the contravention referred to in paragraph 1 of this Order, such damages being fixed in the sum of $10,000.00.

3.THAT the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the application, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V291 of 2000

BETWEEN:

LEANNE GRULKE
Applicant

AND:

K C CANVAS PTY LTD ACN 057 228 850
Respondent

JUDGE:

RYAN J

DATE:

29 SEPTEMBER 2000

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. In this matter I am satisfied that the applicant has made out a contravention of s 14 of the Sex Discrimination 1984 (Cth) and that contravention consisted of discriminatory conduct against the applicant and another female employee while they were employed by the respondent, and the termination, for discriminatory reasons, of their employment in or about May 1997.  I am satisfied that the pecuniary loss sustained by the applicant as a direct result of the termination of that employment can be quantified in the sum of $7,000.00, representing the earnings which she would have received had she remained in the employment of the respondent during the 16 weeks which elapsed between the termination of her employment by the respondent and her obtaining other, similarly remunerated, employment.

  2. I am also satisfied that the applicant is entitled to general damages, as compensation for the psychological harm inflicted by the injury to her feelings which occurred during the course of the employment.  That injury was substantially exacerbated by the termination of that employment in the circumstances that she has recounted.  That component of her damages, I consider, can appropriately be quantified in the sum of $3000.00.

  3. I have further been requested to make an order requiring the respondent to apologise to the applicant, that being, in the submission of Counsel for the applicant, an order of the kind contemplated by s 46PO of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 which provides by subs 4:

    "If the court concerned is satisfied that there has been unlawful discrimination by any respondent the court may make such orders, including a declaration of right, as it thinks fit, including any of the following orders or any order to a similar effect.

    (b)An order requiring a respondent to perform any reasonable act or course of conduct to redress any loss or damage suffered by an applicant."

  4. In my view, having regard to the fact that the respondent here is not a natural legal person but is a corporation, and the fact that I have endeavoured to compensate for loss or damage suffered by the applicant by making a pecuniary award of damages, it is inappropriate to exercise the discretion reposed in the Court by additionally ordering the making of an apology.  Accordingly, the orders of the Court will be:

    1.That it be declared that the respondent has committed unlawful discrimination against the applicant in contravention of s 14 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth).

    2.That the respondent pay to the applicant damages by way of compensation for loss or damage suffered by the applicant by reason of the contravention referred to in paragraph 1 of this Order, such damages being fixed in the sum of $10,000.00.

    3.That the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the application, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Ryan.

Associate:

Dated:             29 September 2000

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms H F Bonney
Solicitor for the Applicant: G A Black and Co
There was no appearance by the Respondent.
Date of Hearing: 29 September 2000
Date of Judgment: 29 September 2000
Details
AGLC
Grulke v K C Canvas Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1415
Case
[2000] FCA 1415
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Grulke v K C Canvas Pty Ltd, the applicant, Leanne Grulke, brought proceedings against her former employer, K C Canvas Pty Ltd, alleging discrimination in contravention of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). The case was heard by Justice Ryan in the Federal Court of Australia, Victoria District Registry, on 29 September 2000. The respondent did not appear at the hearing. Justice Ryan found in favour of the applicant and declared that the respondent had committed unlawful discrimination against the applicant. The court awarded the applicant damages for pecuniary and psychological harm, totaling $10,000. Additionally, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the respondent had engaged in unlawful discrimination against the applicant, in contravention of section 14 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). Specifically, the court had to determine if the applicant had been subjected to discriminatory conduct and if the termination of her employment was due to discriminatory reasons. The applicant claimed that she and another female employee had been subjected to discriminatory conduct by their male colleagues and supervisors, and that their employment was terminated for reasons related to their sex. The respondent, on the other hand, denied any discriminatory conduct and asserted that the termination of the applicant's employment was due to legitimate business reasons.

Justice Ryan found that the applicant had indeed been subjected to discriminatory conduct and that her employment was terminated for discriminatory reasons. The court found that the applicant and another female employee experienced discriminatory conduct from their male colleagues and supervisors, which included derogatory comments and behaviour related to their sex. Furthermore, the court held that the termination of the applicant's employment was due to discriminatory reasons, as evidenced by the evidence presented. Justice Ryan was satisfied that the applicant had suffered pecuniary loss of $7,000 and psychological harm of $3,000 as a result of the unlawful discrimination. The court awarded the applicant damages in the sum of $10,000 to compensate for the loss and harm suffered. Additionally, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

RYAN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: RYAN J

Full text does not contain this section.