Tory Whanau bows out of mayoral race, figures reveal key factors contributing to homelessness and the inquest into Juliana Herrera’s murder continues.
A beauty therapist’s joy and excitement at discovering she was pregnant were soon replaced by stress and humiliation when her job security came under threat due to her news.
Zelinda Doria’s former employers forced her to go on maternity leave while she was only a few weeks pregnant, and later caused her to resign.
Now, eight years on from the ordeal, Doria has been awarded almost $100,000 in recognition of the way they treated her.
“I couldn’t enjoy being pregnant or being a mum. All I could focus on was how I could afford things,” Doria told NZME.
“I had to sell my car to keep afloat, so I didn’t have any transport for most of my pregnancy.
“I wasn’t able to focus on anything except finding an income.”
In 2017, at the peak of the employment issue, Doria had lodged a claim with the Human Rights Commissioner.
But after the failure of mediation between Doria and her then-employers, Olivia Flowers, formerly Olivia Blakeney-Williams, and her father, Richard Blakeney-Williams, at Diamond Laser Medispa in Taupō, she was forced to resign.
Primary carer leave, commonly known as maternity leave, is Government-funded leave for up to six months and can begin up to six weeks before the baby’s due date.
It can only begin earlier if the employer and employee agree, or if the employee is unable to perform their workplace duties.
The email said the business required Doria to start her leave early because of “the overwhelming information regarding the risk of harm to you and/or baby, together with the non-work related activities that you have said are having a detrimental effect on your health and putting your baby at risk”.
It stated Doria had taken time off in the previous three weeks, which she said was due to morning sickness. It also stated the workplace involved many chemicals, and that Doria could not perform the hours required “even at this early stage of your pregnancy”.
A request to cancel the nominated early carer leave and for a work-related risk assessment to be conducted by an independent professional to find a temporary solution was rejected.
Doria had also provided a letter from her midwife stating she was “fit and healthy and completely capable of performing her duties”, notwithstanding the morning sickness, which the midwife described as a common symptom of pregnancy.
The Human Rights Review Tribunal heard Doria's case in 2021. Photo / Jeremy Wilkinson
The beauty therapist did not apply immediately for paid primary carer leave, as she intended to use it for the period closest to her due date.
As she was still a Diamond Laser Medispa employee, she struggled to obtain help from Work and Income and was limited in what other employment she could pick up.
She requested her holiday pay, but that was refused. Doria was told she would not be paid it unless her employment was terminated or she resigned.
In the end, Doria never received paid parental leave.
When she inquired about applying, she was told she did not meet the criteria due to not having worked enough hours at that point.
Doria then made a complaint to the Human Rights Commissioner, alleging she had been discriminated against by Flowers, Blakeney-Williams and their company.
Despite mediation between the parties, Doria’s complaint couldn’t be resolved, and she resigned and was paid out her holiday pay.
In 2018, Doria filed her claim with the HRRT.
Flowers and Blakeney-Williams applied to strike out the claim on the basis that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with it.
But that was dismissed by the tribunal, a decision that was later upheld by the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
‘She was treated with ongoing hostility and contempt’
Years after hearing the case in 2021, the tribunal has now issued its ruling.
Its decision stated that counsel for Flowers and Blakeney-Williams had claimed Doria was told to go on early parental leave because she was unable to do her job as she was suffering morning sickness.
They claimed it was not due to the pregnancy itself; rather, it was the symptoms of the pregnancy.
But the tribunal rejected the rationale.
“The submission that the symptoms of pregnancy can and were, in this instance, separated out from a pregnancy to justify detrimental treatment overlooks the entire rationale for the protection from discrimination of pregnant women …” the decision stated.
“Ms Doria lost her source of income immediately. She was denied the opportunity to work, despite intending to have worked for the remaining seven months of her pregnancy.”
The tribunal said a decision to ban Doria from the spa’s premises for health reasons was not supported by any medical evidence.
It also said the decision to place her on early leave with “no notice, no consultation, no medical information and no risk report” and to then contact her and remind her of her obligations as an employee and the possibility of being disciplined, all contributed to Doria having to resign.
“We accept that Ms Doria experienced the humiliation of being unable to financially provide for herself during her pregnancy and to prepare for her baby’s arrival; the injury to feelings she experienced, including the stress and distress when she found herself without a job and an inability to experience the joy of pregnancy as she was consumed by trying to obtain sufficient income and challenging her employer’s actions,” the tribunal said.
“We also accept the discrimination she faced as a result of her pregnancy impacted upon her dignity during this vulnerable period of her life. She was treated with ongoing hostility and contempt by the defendants …”
The decision stated that Flowers and Blakeney-Williams had tried to justify their actions at the hearing, referencing the “rude behaviour” of Doria, who swore at Blakeney-Williams.
While the tribunal took that into account, it said it did not, however, entitle her employer to unlawfully discriminate against her. Nor did it disentitle her from a remedy.
Flowers, Blakeney-Williams and their company were ordered to pay Doria $75,000 in damages for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings, as well as $15,467 for lost wages, and $9303.30 for lost paid parental leave, totalling $99,770.30.
A declaration was also made stating they had discriminated against Doria “on the basis of the prohibited ground of sex, which includes pregnancy and childbirth”.
Doria, whose daughter, Valentina, is now 8, told NZME the whole situation was “bizarre” and that Flowers had been a close friend until she became pregnant.
“I feel like I will never know the real reason why me, particularly, being pregnant, was such an issue for her,” Doria said.
“There were countless times they could have apologised or made things right, but they never have.”
Doria told NZME she wanted to thank her former employers for “lighting a fire inside me that can never be dimmed, this situation forced me to prove to myself that I can overcome anything”.
“I hope Olivia and Richard can come to terms with the reality that you cannot treat people the way that you do.”
Flowers and Blakeney-Williams declined to comment on the ruling.
However, their lawyer said they were considering their options in terms of an appeal.
Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū, covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.
