Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1986, Girard et al v The Attorney General, Court of Appeal, Saint Lucia, Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (1986)

The plaintiffs were two unmarried female teachers in the permanent establishment who were pregnant for the second time and were subsequently dismissed from their employment by the Teaching Service Commission. The first plaintiff was initially granted three months of maternity leave. She was only paid for one month and was told at the end of her three-month maternity leave that she should not return to work. The second plaintiff was similarly an unmarried teacher whose services were terminated in accordance with regulation 23(3) of the Teaching Service Commission Regulations 1977 – S.R.O. 41/1977 (the “Regulation”), which provided for dismissal from a teaching job after a second pregnancy if the woman is unmarried. The first plaintiff admitted knowing of the regulation, which stated that the services of an unmarried female teacher would be terminated on the second pregnancy. Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that it was discriminatory on the grounds of sex to have a regulation that provided for the termination of an unmarried female teacher due to the second pregnancy, especially considering that an overwhelming majority of children in Saint Lucia are born out of wedlock. The plaintiff further argued that such a regulation is not in the public interest and leads to abortion and forced marriages. The Court determined that Section 1 of the Constitution of Saint Lucia, which enumerates certain fundamental rights and freedoms that every person should have, does not independently create judicially enforceable rights and freedoms. The judgment held that the regulations were not discriminatory and were not ultra vires the Constitution of Saint Lucia. The judgment stated that the regulation, to the extent it might infringe the Constitution, is a law that can be considered reasonably justified in a democratic society and is intra vires (within the power) by virtue of the accompanying subsections of the Constitution. However, it was determined that the application in this case led to the wrongful dismissal of the plaintiffs from their employment, and it was ordered that they be reinstated as teachers.

Topics

Geographical location

Keywords

Year

  • 1986

External URL

Court

Type

Jurisdiction