The Complainant (C) went to a restaurant (R) for lunch with family members including her new born baby. While they were having their lunch the baby became hungry and started to cry. C began breastfeeding him discreetly. Shortly afterwards, R’s staff came and asked her to stop breastfeeding as it would offend other customers. When C asked them to provide her with a private space to breastfeed, R refused.

C lodged a complaint with the EOC against R for discriminating her on the ground of family status by not providing facilities to breastfeed her child. The case was settled through early conciliation after R offered apology for its behavior, and agreed to offer assistance as far as possible to customers who needed to breastfeed and also train staff regarding providing assistance.

It is unlawful under the Family Status Discrimination Ordinance to discriminate against a person with family status in providing goods, facilities or services. It can amount to family status discrimination if a service provider treats a customer less favourably on the ground of her family status, such as the need to breastfeed. Family status means the responsibility for the care of an immediate family member.

The complainant (C) worked as a clinic assistant for a medical practitioner (R). After working for a year, C became pregnant and later took maternity leave. However, upon resuming work R frequently assigned her night duty due to which she could not take much care of her child. C’s mother had to look after the baby and take her for regular health check-ups. When C’s husband asked R why she was being assigned night duties frequently, R responded that the other staff had to work extra during C’s maternity leave and now they deserved more day duty.

C resigned from her job and lodged a complaint with the EOC against R for discriminating her on the ground of family status. The case was settled though conciliation after R agreed to provide C with an apology letter.

It is unlawful under the Family Status Discrimination Ordinance to discriminate against a person who has family status by dismissing that person or subjecting him/her to any other detriment. In this case, the frequent night shift duty could have been detrimental to the employee, who had to take care of her new born child as well.

The Complainant (C) was an executive at a financial institution (R). One day she had to take a day’s leave as her son had to be hospitalized. C informed her office about her absence through text message. When the doctor informed C that her son needed to remain in the hospital for a few more days, she called her supervisor to request for one more day of leave. C was curtly asked whether she wanted her job or her family. C went to office the next day but within a few hours received a phone call from the hospital asking her to see the doctor immediately as her son’s condition had deteriorated. C requested her supervisor for an urgent leave but was denied. Left with no choice, she handed in her resignation and left.

Later C lodged a complaint with the EOC against the supervisor for discriminating against her and R for being vicariously liable for the act of her superior. The case was settled through early conciliation after R agreed to provide C with a reference letter and also to waive the payment she was supposed to make in lieu of the notice period for leaving employment. C decided not to pursue a case against the supervisor since he had left the job after she filed a complaint at the EOC.

Under the Family Status Discrimination Ordinance (FSDO), it is unlawful for a person or an organization to discriminate against any individual on the basis of his/ her family status. The FSDO explains family status as a person’s responsibility to take care of an immediate family member – a person related by blood, marriage, adoption or affinity. In the above case, C was discriminated because she was denied an urgent leave despite having a responsibility to look after C’s son, whom the law describes as her relative by blood.

The Complainant (C), accompanied by her two children and a pram, had to take a ride on a bus (R2). Since the pram was broken and could not be folded, she asked the driver (R1) if she could enter from the rear entrance which was a bit wider. C claimed that R1 refused to allow her to enter through the rear door and commented that she should not travel in bus while carrying a pram. C also alleged that the driver made the same comments when she got off the bus.

C lodged a complaint with the EOC alleging family status discrimination against R1 and R2. The case was settled through early conciliation after R1 agreed to provide written apology to C and her children and R2 agreed to continue and strengthen staff training on courtesy.

It is unlawful under the Family Status Discrimination Ordinance to discriminate against a person seeking goods, services and facilities (including transport facilities) on the ground of his/her family status by treating the person less favorably. Employers are vicariously liable to the unlawful acts of their staff unless they have taken reasonably practicable steps to prevent the acts from happening.

The Complainant (C), who used to work in a company run by the respondent (R), took leave to arrange the funeral of her deceased father. When she was back to work after leave, R told her that she was dismissed. C alleged that R told her that since her father had recently passed away he was worried that her emotions would affect the work of other staff.

C lodged a complaint with the EOC against R for discriminating her on the ground of family status. The case was settled through early conciliation after R agreed to pay a sum equivalent to C’s 1.5 months’ salary and provide statements of her monthly salary since the date she joined the company.

It is unlawful under the Family Status Discrimination Ordinance to discriminate against a person who has family status by dismissing that person or subjecting him/her to any other detriment. It might be family status discrimination if an employer dismisses an employee for having to arrange his/her parent’s funeral.

The Complainant (C) had been working as a clerk at a bank (R) for five years when she was transferred to another department where working hours were considerably longer that her previous department. C claimed that this caused her difficulty in taking care of her young children as she was their primary caretaker. C’s husband worked mainly in the mainland and was mostly absent from home.

C lodged a complaint with the EOC alleging family status discrimination. The case was resolved after R agreed to allow C to leave office no later than 6.30 p.m during weekdays and also to consider adjusting C’s job duties and position depending on the operational needs and C’s skills and ability.

According to the Family Status Discrimination Ordinance, a person indirectly discriminates against another person if he/she applies the same requirement or condition, which cannot be justified, equally on people with and without family status but which has an unfair effect on people with family status because they cannot comply with it. It is a balancing exercise to consider the justifiability of a requirement imposed by the employer and the effect on individual employee.

The Complainant applied to enroll in a training course for junior administrative assistants organized by the Respondent, a non-profit making organization. She alleged that at the interview, the interviewer discouraged her from attending the course after learning that she had to take care of two children. Shortly after the interview, the interviewer told her that her course application had been rejected. The Complainant alleged that the Respondent had discriminated against her on the ground of her family status by rejecting her course application.

Under the Family Status Discrimination Ordinance, it is unlawful for a service provider to discriminate against a person with family status by refusing to provide that person with its services. Stereotypical assumptions that persons with a particular family responsibility would not be able to perform a certain duty or undergo a particular training could easily lead to discriminatory acts.

The Complainant joined the Respondent, a financial institution, as a Customer Service Officer in 1997 and worked regular banking hours. She had a 7-year-old daughter cared for by a part-time helper until 8 p.m. The Complainant's husband worked shifts including overnight duties, which meant she must be home in the evenings to care for her daughter.

In early 2005, the Respondent informed the Complainant that she would be assigned to work shifts in two months' time, which included working overnight duties. The Complainant requested to work regular hours only due to her childcare need but this was rejected. She alleged the Respondent had discriminated against her on the ground of her family status by operating a policy that required officers of her rank to work shifts, resulting in her not being able to care for her daughter at night.

There were 40 Customer Service Officers who worked in the Complainant's section and some had worked shifts since joining the company. From 2004, the Respondent had verbally informed those who did not work shifts, including the Complainant, that the terms and conditions of their jobs would be standardised and all would be required to work shifts.

The parties agreed to attempt early conciliation to resolve the matter and the complaint was settled without a full investigation. In balancing the Respondent's operational needs with the Complainant's personal circumstance, it was agreed that the Complainant would be transferred to a post that did not require shift duties.

Under the Family Status Discrimination Ordinance, it is unlawful for an employer to impose the same requirement on all employees with which persons with a particular family status cannot comply and suffer a detriment as a result, unless the employer can justify the requirement. In justifying the requirement, the nature of business, operational needs, and the terms and condition of employment are some of the factors that may be considered.

The Complainant (C), a job applicant, alleged that the Respondent Company (R1), an electronic device company, and its Deputy General Manager (R2), had discriminated against her on the grounds of her marital status and/or family status (i.e. taking care of her 2 children) by rejecting her application for the post of Sales Coordinator. The post holder was mainly responsible for liaison with clients on orders. C claimed that R2, the sole interviewer in the recruitment interview, had asked her about her family responsibilities and marital status. R2 had also allegedly made a remark in the interview that “You are not a problem and I feel that you are quite good. But you have children and this is a big problem”.

Rs denied the allegations. They said C was not employed because her working experience was not up to the post requirement. R2 said her conversation on family composition with C was meant to be a casual talk only.

R2 offered C a verbal apology. In addition, R provided monetary compensation of $500 to C to compensate for the financial loss incurred for attending the interview. The case was settled in December 2002.

Only questions relevant to work requirements should be asked at job interviews. Decision to hire should be based on the assessment of one's capability in fulfilling the job requirements and not on speculations based on marital or family status.

The Complainant (C) had worked as a teacher in a primary school (R1) for eight years. On the first day she resumed duties from maternity leave, which coincidentally was the first day of the school academic year, the principal (R2) proposed to her to change her employment status from full time to part time. C refused. The next day, R2 told C that she would be dismissed because she had been absent from the staff meetings during the summer holiday. C considered the reason for her dismissal unreasonable because she had been on maternity leave then and was not obliged to attend the meetings.

Rs denied the allegations. They explained that C agreed but failed to attend the staff meetings held during the summer holidays. Furthermore, C did not respond to R2's phone calls. R2 formed the view that C could not be entrusted with the demanding job of a class mistress. R2 also thought that because C had to take care of her child, she would appreciate having less demanding duties. R2 therefore assigned C to spend half of her working time on teaching duties and the remainder on administrative duties. Rs denied having forced C to work on a part-time basis. As C refused to take up the new duties, Rs therefore terminated the contract.

The complaints were resolved in August 2002 whereby Rs provided C with monetary compensation of $100,000 (roughly equal to 6 month's salary of C).

A person with particular family status should not be assumed to be less devoted to the job or any less competent. As far as discrimination acts are concerned, it is not the intention but the resultant impact of the act which is material. If an employer changes an employee's job duties if the move results in less favourable treatment to the employee, it may amount to unlawful discrimination.