Song v Ainsworth Game Technology Pty Ltd

The matter before the court involved a claim by the applicant, Song, against the respondent, Ainsworth Game Technology Pty Ltd, regarding her dismissal from employment. The applicant alleged that she was dismissed due to her family responsibilities, which constituted unlawful discrimination under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth). The Federal Magistrates Court was tasked with determining the validity of these claims and the appropriate remedies.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent had unlawfully discriminated against the applicant by dismissing her on the basis of her family responsibilities. This required the court to consider the relevant provisions of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act and the evidence presented regarding the applicant's dismissal. The court also needed to assess the quantum of damages, if any, that should be awarded to the applicant and determine whether reinstatement to her former employment was warranted.

In examining the evidence and submissions, the court found that the respondent had indeed dismissed the applicant because of her family responsibilities. The court held that this constituted unlawful discrimination under the Act. Consequently, the court ordered a declaration to this effect and awarded the applicant general and special damages, as well as costs. The court also mandated the applicant's reinstatement to her former position and allowed for a variation in her employment agreement to accommodate her family needs.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant the sum of $10,000.00 by way of general damages, and further ordered that the respondent pay special damages at the rate of $244.44 per week from 21 February 2001 until the date of judgment, less $977.76 already paid. Additionally, the court ordered the respondent to reinstate the applicant to her former employment immediately, and to permit her to take her lunch break from 2.55p.m. to 3.25p.m. during each working day. The respondent was also required to pay the applicant's costs unless an application to argue the question of costs was made within seven days of the date of the judgment.