The United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign affairs has been forced to pay a waitress at its former Melbourne consulate over $200,000 for Fair Work general protections violations. The waitress had been forced to express breastmilk in a storeroom and store it in a suitcase of ice. A federal court found that she had been subjected to a “calculated” campaign of discrimination from the Ministry, which had also denied her parental leave and flexible work before eventually dismissing her.
In this article, we look at the events of this Fair Work general protections claim Duarte v United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs [2026]. Later, we look at the recent case of a Sydney worker who claimed she had faced discrimination due to her pregnancy.
Tatiana Duarte started working for the United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs in July 2018. She was employed as a full-time waitress and cleaner at its Melbourne consulate. The events leading to her termination of employment began in April 2020. This was when Ms. Duarte told the consul general, Dr. Nariman Al Mulla, that she was pregnant with her first child. Ms. Duarte then attempted to secure her entitlements under the National Employment Standards, but she was met with immediate resistance.
In May 2020, she requested 14 weeks of paid parental leave to commence in late December. Dr. Al Mulla refused the request and instead directed her to start leave on 1 December 2020. When Ms. Duarte later applied for an additional 20 weeks of unpaid parental leave in March 2021, the request was again rejected. On 20 May 2021, while she was still caring for her newborn, the consul general demanded she return to work the next day in a new role as a butler.
Due to the lack of notice for childcare, Ms. Duarte returned to work three days later on 24 May 2021. During Fair Work general protections proceedings, the court heard that upon her return to work, Dr. Al Mulla “required” her to express milk in a storeroom. He also “refused” to provide facilities to store the milk. Ms. Duarte said that she was forced to store the breastmilk “in a suitcase filled with ice.” In October 2021, Ms. Duarte requested a flexible work arrangement to finish two hours earlier at 2pm every day so that she could care for her infant son. However, Dr. Al Mulla refused this request.
Shortly after taking two days of annual leave that same month, Ms. Duarte was told her position was redundant and she was dismissed with a $13,390 payment. Her termination of employment took effect on 1 November 2021. The court later determined that if not for the adverse action, Ms. Duarte would have remained employed until the Melbourne consulate officially closed on 31 August 2022.
In her Fair Work general protections claim, Ms. Duarte argued that the Ministry had taken adverse action against her for exercising workplace rights. She argued that the redundancy was a pretext and that she had been targeted due to her pregnancy, breastfeeding requirements and requests for parental leave. She also alleged that the consulate had engaged in sexual discrimination by treating her less favourably due to her status as a mother. Ms. Duarte initially lodged her case with the Fair Work Commission in May 2022. However, when it could not be resolved, in February 2025 she filed her grievance in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
The Ministry was represented by solicitors from Clyde & Co, who received instructions from the United Arab Emirates Embassy in Canberra. The legal proceedings were long and drawn out, with the Ministry seeking several extensions. An affidavit from a solicitor noted the “difficulty” in “receiving instructions from the Embassy.” Despite extensions of time, the Ministry failed to file a defence as ordered by the court. This left its solicitors without “proper or meaningful instructions” to defend the claim. In submissions filed on 7 November 2025, the Ministry’s legal team stated they had “no instructions” to contest Ms. Duarte’s claim and had no evidence with which to do so.
The Ministry’s inability to contest Ms. Duarte’s general protections claim led the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia to make a default judgement in February 2026. It found that the Ministry had committed 13 separate contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The court described the treatment of Ms. Duarte as “unacceptable,” stating that the “humiliation” of breastfeeding in a storeroom and storing milk in a suitcase was “obvious.”
The court noted that Dr. Al Mulla’s conduct “appears” to have been intentional and “calculated to frustrate” Ms. Duarte or induce her to resign. It accepted evidence from a clinical psychologist that stated Ms. Duarte had experienced “high levels of stress” while at the Ministry. It also accepted the psychologist’s determination that she had shown symptoms of “prolonged chronic stressors and discrimination.”
The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia found that the Ministry took adverse action against Ms. Duarte. This was because it had engaged in sexual discrimination and that Ms. Duarte’s termination of employment was directly linked to exercising her workplace rights. It also found that the Ministry had failed to comply with legal obligations regarding the National Employment Standards and entitlements for unpaid parental leave.
Given these findings, the court ruled that the Ministry had to pay Ms. Duarte compensation. It noted that the Melbourne consulate had closed in August 2022 and that Dr. Al Mulla had moved to a new post. However, the court still deemed the Ministry responsible for the conduct of its officers. The court ordered the Ministry to pay Ms. Duarte a total of $203,256.99. This included $100,000 in pecuniary penalties because the litigation had dragged on for several years.
It also included $48,190.46 to cover Ms. Duarte’s lost salary, superannuation and entitlements. This included a deduction for the redundancy payment she received upon her dismissal. The total amount also included $25,000 for non-economic loss related to hurt and humiliation. To account for the time elapsed, the court calculated interest at $25,106.53. Finally, due to the Ministry’s failure to actively defend the case, the court ordered the payment of $4,960.00 in legal costs.
Another recent Fair Work general protections claim that involved alleged discrimination related to pregnancy is Talaugon v Allight Pty Ltd [2025]. Axel Talaugon started working for Western Sydney-based industrial equipment supplier Allight in February 2022 as a contracts officer. At the time of her termination of employment in May 2023, Ms. Talaugon was pregnant with her second child. She was also the primary carer for a young daughter, as her husband was a fly-in-fly-out worker.
In late 2022, Ms. Talaugon’s manager raised concerns about her communication and attendance. He noted that management often did not know when she was working and that her lack of notice for leave requests was impacting the team. In January 2023, Ms. Talaugon requested a flexible working arrangement. Then in February 2023, she told Allight that she was pregnant. As her pregnancy progressed, she requested further changes to her flexible working arrangement due to “heavy morning sickness.” Management requested medical certificates to verify her fitness for work. During Fair Work general protections proceedings, Ms. Talaugon characterised this as harassment.
The incident that triggered formal disciplinary action occurred on 5 April 2023. Ms. Talaugon brought her six-year-old daughter to the office without authority and took her into the production facility. This was a hazardous area containing welding equipment and heavy machinery where visitors required safety inductions. When confronted by management, Ms. Talaugon became emotional. During Fair Work general protections proceedings, the court noted that she “started shouting” and “slammed her hand on the desk and yelled” at her supervisors.
The exchange was so heated that her daughter was heard to say, “Mum, I’m scared.” Ms. Talaugon then abruptly left the workplace. Allight subsequently scheduled several performance meetings to address Ms. Talaugon’s conduct and communication issues. However, she refused to attend, stating she needed to seek legal advice first. This delay lasted over a month. On 19 May 2023, the company held a show cause meeting where it was determined that Ms. Talaugon had not provided a reasonable explanation for her conduct or her refusal to follow directions. Allight decided to terminate her employment on 26 May 2023.
Ms. Talaugon subsequently lodged a Fair Work general protections claim. She argued that the performance concerns were not genuine and were merely a “pretext” for her dismissal. Ms. Talaugon claimed that the real reason for her termination of employment was because she was pregnant and had carer responsibilities.
She contended that management had a plan to “manage” her out of Allight starting in early 2023. Ms. Talaugon also alleged that Allight’s refusal to grant her carer’s leave for days when she had no childcare was a breach of the National Employment Standards. Ms. Talaugon maintained that she was being targeted for exercising her workplace rights to request flexible working arrangements.
In response to the Fair Work general protections claim, Allight argued that there was a valid reason for termination of employment based on Ms. Talaugon’s conduct. It said that her “repeated” failure to engage with processes like her performance improvement plan indicated that she did not want to work at Allight. The company argued that the safety incident in the production zone was a serious breach of policy and that her aggressive behaviour toward managers was unacceptable.
The employer maintained that Ms. Talaugon was treated the same as any other employee and that her carer responsibilities were not a factor in the decision to dismiss her. Allight argued that her “avoidance and aggression” made it impossible to manage her performance through standard workplace procedures.
Ms. Talaugon’s Fair Work general protections claim was heard by the Federal Court of Australia in December 2025. Regarding the safety incident, the court found that Allight had a “reasonable and proper foundation” for disciplining Ms. Talaugon. It said that following the safety incident, when she was confronted by management, her conduct was “not an appropriate way” for an employee to treat her coworkers. Regarding Ms. Talaugon’s application for carer’s leave, the court said that her request was unreasonable. This is because the Fair Work Act 2009 mandates that carer’s leave is only for when a family member is ill or injured, not for a general lack of childcare.
The court accepted that Ms. Talaugon’s performance concerns were genuine and had been documented as early as May 2022, well before her pregnancy was known. It said that it was not discriminatory for an employer to ask an employee how they intend to perform their work while caring for a child. Ultimately, the court found that Allight had successfully proved that the termination of employment was not for a proscribed reason. It ruled that Allight’s primary motivation was Ms. Talaugon’s failure to address performance and conduct concerns. Her Fair Work general protections claim was therefore dismissed.
Read more: Pregnancy Discrimination in Australia
We at Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives (AWDR) work with employees nationwide on unfair dismissal, constructive (forced) resignation, general protections disputes, sexual harassment and other workplace rights matters. Employers fear us for our track record holding them to account, and we can help you get the compensation you deserve.
Strict submission deadlines apply for Fair Work claims, so contact us now on 1800 333 666 for your free and confidential initial consultation.
