It's never a good idea to form an opinion of judicial actions based on reports in newspapers. I think Angela Chong also has a common misunderstanding about the role of the courts, and the powers exercised by the judiciary.

The full written judgement is here.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FMCA/2005/111.html

As is usually the case, one finds that the decision is made in accordance with the law, as it must be. Even if the magistrate had considered it unacceptable in our society for the woman to be required to wear a mini skirt, he still couldn't have ruled differently in the case.

Such issues, if they are going to be addressed at all, need to be addressed by parliament.

Sylvia Else.

I think Sylvia has misunderstood the point of my article.

My concern is not that the decision was not ‘made in accordance with the law’. I realise that other factors led to the court’s decision. I am aware of the voluntary agreement made between Ms Zhang and her employee which partly contributed to the magistrate’s decision. However, this does not take away from the fact that in paragraph 61 of his judgment, the magistrate outlines Ms Zhang’s consent to wear short skirts socially as part of his reasons.

The powers of the judiciary are not confined to applying the law, but also extend to interpreting it. More importantly, the role of the judge is to decide a case on its relevant facts. I do not see how a woman’s choice to wear mini skirts outside the workplace is at all relevant to her claim of sex discrimination against her employer.

As is the case with most judgments, the final outcome itself is not the only thing of importance; the legal reasoning should also be examined. In this case, the magistrate took into account the irrelevant fact of Ms Zhang’s normal attire. This sends out the wrong message that a woman’s right to be free from discrimination can partly be compromised by the clothes she chooses to wear.

Paragraph 61 seems nothing more than a finding of fact, and the issue of the woman wearing short skirts in her social life is only raised as part of the rationale for believing some evidence. It is important that these findings of fact be recorded, even if the magistrate holds the view that it's not relevant. A higher court might decide otherwise.

I cannot see that it formed any part of the final decision.

Even if the woman had not been accustomed to wearing short skirts in her social life, her claim would still have failed.

Angela is attaching much to much importance to something that was really quite peripheral to question being decided.

Sylvia Else.

The underlying problem here is that this is a Religious question.
Our Federal Government is not allowed to make any law on Religion - section 116. And if it does it will be violating the Constitution.

However our State Governments are not so restricted since an attempt to extend 116 to the States failed.

So legally a Federal Court can make no ruling, but a State Court could.

Since Religion is such a controversial volatile and violent matter it is absurd to expect any State to function in this hamstrung way. So Section 116 should be abolished or ammended so that the State, the Federal State that is, can legally make rulings on such matters.

Of course that is not going to satisfy any of the losing parties
but at least it will give a Federal Law which all must abide with. Keith

kthrex, why is this a religious question? I am not familiar with the case other than what I have read here but nothing so far has sounded specifically like a religious issue.

Does anyone know how this stuff works in the contect of...
1. Working at a Grand Prix as a promotional 'grid girl' (or 'grid guy') which may require an imposed uniform.
2. Working in a clothing (fashion) or, say, a mobile phone store where the dress may be part of the image the company wants to project to customers.

Are there any defined boundaries in these areas? At what point does it become acceptable for an employer to define dress that may be considered unacceptable to the wearer?