Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
A female soldier, whose seniority was not recognised after she could not complete a fitness test due to medical complications following a caesarean section, has been awarded over $120,000 in compensation.
High Court Judge Westmin James ordered the compensation for Sergeant Patrian Phillip-Roberts as he upheld her constitutional discrimination case against the Commanding Officer of the T&T Regiment (TTR), earlier this month.
In deciding the case, Justice James noted that it highlighted long-standing systemic discrimination against women in the local military, which may not have been easily apparent but must be stamped out.
“It is often so thoroughly embedded in institutional architecture, in the assumption built into rules, rosters and standing operating procedures, that it becomes not invisible but inevitable,” Justice James said.
“It passes itself off as neutrality, as tradition, as the natural order of how things have always been done. And that is precisely why it must be brought into the light, again and again, examined and named and dismantled, until we have extracted it by its roots rather than merely pruned its branches,” he added.
Phillip-Roberts joined the TTR in 2002. She participated in a professional development course to be promoted to the rank of Sergeant in 2020.
Phillip-Roberts was successful in all modules except the physical fitness test, which she could not pass due to limitations from a caesarean section for which she received medical disposals and light therapy.
She eventually passed the test in 2023 and was promoted.
However, through her lawyer Arden Williams, Phillip-Roberts pursued the lawsuit as she claimed that her seniority was not adjusted to match her original cadre batch from 2020.
Dealing with the legality of the refusal to perform the adjustment, Justice James noted that the TTR mischaracterised her inability to complete the test due to medical grounds as being absent without leave (AWOL).
“It reflects a failure to properly engage with relevant considerations and introduces an irrelevant and prejudicial factor, namely, disciplinary fault where none existed,” Justice James said.
He also found that her legitimate expectation to receive the adjustment, that was applied to male colleagues identified by her, was breached.
“The departure from established practice was therefore unjustified and procedurally and substantively unfair,” he said.
Justice James found that her constitutional rights to protection of the law, equality of treatment from a public authority, and to private and family life were breached by the TTR’s actions.
Addressing equality of treatment, Justice James ruled that the TTR’s rules and practices indirectly discriminated against women because of pregnancy and childbirth.
“In this present case, the practical effect of the Defendants’ approach was to treat the Claimant’s medically certified post-partum incapacity as equivalent to failure or misconduct,” he said.
“This approach imposes a career disadvantage that is directly linked to maternity and penalises a woman for a biological function and a form of indirect discrimination that cannot be justified,” he added.
Justice James issued a series of declarations over what transpired and an order directing that her seniority be adjusted.
He ordered $41,657.40 in damages for the financial losses she suffered by not being reclassified and $50,000 for the distress, frustration, and injustice she faced.
“The denial of advancement on grounds linked to pregnancy carries an inherent affront to dignity,” he said.
He also ordered $30,000 in vindicatory damages and directed the TTR to pay her legal costs for pursuing the case.
Phillip-Roberts was also represented by Karyl Williams. Rachel Theophilus and Anala Mohan represented the TTR.
