Her return from parental leave was cancelled at the last minute

Lindsey Aragon worked as a sales executive for Austrend, a gourmet food distributor, from 2013. She went on parental leave in July 2015. When she asked to come back two days a week, she was told it was full-time or nothing. So she nominated 4 April 2016 to return full-time, and the company replied that she was “most welcome to join duty”.

In March 2016 she told the company she was pregnant again and confirmed she was coming back. Her follow-up emails went largely unanswered until 1 April 2016, when the director wrote that her unpaid leave had been extended until she delivered her second baby. She replied that she had never asked for that. That evening a second email denied any agreement, insisted on a medical certificate, referred to “poor performance” and told her not to contact staff before 12 April.

The Fair Work Ombudsman took the company to court. Austrend admitted refusing to let her return because of her sex and pregnancy, in breach of s 351 of the Fair Work Act, and its director admitted being involved. Justice Banks-Smith noted the company admitted the medical certificate demand was unlawful. It also emerged that the evening email had been drafted by the director’s friend overseas and sent without the director reading it.

By July 2016 Ms Aragon had been paid her wages from 4 April and had agreed to resign, so the court awarded compensation only for hurt and distress: $2,000. It found she was left in the dark and then met with “unnecessarily harsh, threatening and combative language”. Penalties were $15,500 for the company and $2,800 for the director, paid to the Commonwealth, and the company had to train its managers.

As the judge put it: “Making matters so difficult for a person seeking to return to work from parental leave simply should not happen in this day and age.”