Pregnancy discrimination complaint lodged four months late cannot go ahead (SACAT, 2026)

What happened

The applicant worked for the Department for Correctional Services as a custodial dog handler in its operations security unit. She told her manager on 11 April 2024 that she was pregnant and asked for a safe job, because the role involved possible exposure to drugs and needles, contact with prisoners who might be violent, carrying weapons and wearing a heavy vest. No alternative role was found straight away, and from 13 April to the end of July 2024 she used sick leave and recreation leave while she waited. During that period the Department took her operational dogs out of her care and had them kennelled. She said other dog handlers were allowed to keep their dogs while on extended leave.

She returned to administrative duties at the end of July 2024, but said the work was not a structured position and she spent much of her time with a different team. One of her first tasks was in the room where drugs were kept for dog training, clearing out and disposing of old soiled uniforms, which she said was not safe work while pregnant. Shortly before she went on maternity leave, a male colleague undressed in front of her and another female employee. She and the other employee complained, and on 9 October 2024 it was disclosed to the man that she was the complainant. She said she then felt unsafe working with him.

She began maternity leave on 21 October 2024 and her twins were born prematurely on 6 November 2024. The babies stayed in hospital for two weeks and she stayed a week. After discharge, she and the babies needed ongoing medical and nursing support, the twins had surgery at about three months of age, and she was later readmitted to hospital for urgent treatment and had further medical complications. She said that during this time she spoke to her union and sought legal advice, but did not have the capacity to prepare a formal complaint.

She discussed returning to work with the Department in September 2025, including part-time work, and exchanged emails with her manager in January and February 2026 about getting her dogs back and the conditions they were being kept in. She lodged her complaint with the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity on 4 February 2026. On 30 April 2026 the Commissioner refused to extend the time for making the complaint, and the employee applied to the Tribunal to review that refusal.

What each side wanted

The employee argued her complaint was not late at all, because everything she complained about was a "series of acts" linked by her pregnancy, the last of which happened in early February 2026 when the Department responded about her dogs. In the alternative, she asked for an extension of time, saying her health and the care her twins needed were good reasons for the delay, that she was only about four months late, that the evidence was documentary and still available, and that it would be just and equitable to extend time because the Department had the resources to respond and otherwise the merits of her complaint would never be looked at. The Commissioner, represented by the Crown Solicitor's Office, said the last act complained of was on 9 October 2024, about 16 months before the complaint, and that the later events in 2025 and 2026 were not connected to the 2024 events. The Commissioner accepted the reasons for the delay were good and understandable, but argued it would not be just and equitable to extend time given how far out of time the complaint was and the prejudice to the Department in answering allegations about a seven-month period two years earlier. The Commissioner made no submissions on the merits of the underlying complaint.

What the tribunal decided

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. That order was made under section 37(1)(a) of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. No money was claimed or ordered.

The practical effect is that the Commissioner's refusal to extend time stands, so the pregnancy discrimination complaint cannot be taken further under the Equal Opportunity Act 1984.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

On a review like this, the Tribunal's job under section 34 of the SACAT Act is to decide whether the decision under review is the correct or preferable one. "Correct" means made in line with the law, and "preferable" means the best of the options that were open to the decision-maker, judged against the purposes of the Act the decision was made under.

Section 93(2) of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 requires a complaint to be lodged with the Commissioner within 12 months of the act complained of, or, where the breach is made up of a series of acts, within 12 months of the last of those acts. The Tribunal applied the meaning of "series of acts" set out in an earlier equal opportunity case: the acts must be linked or connected to each other, not just isolated incidents involving the same organisation. The Tribunal accepted that all the matters the employee raised may have arisen out of her being pregnant, but held that a shared underlying fact is not the same as a link between the incidents. The 2024 events, the September 2025 return-to-work discussions and the early 2026 exchange about the dogs were not connected in the way the section requires. The complaint was therefore out of time.

Section 93(2a) allows the time to be extended if there is good reason why the complaint was not made in time and, in all the circumstances, it is just and equitable to do so. The Tribunal held those two requirements are cumulative: both must be met. It accepted the medical evidence about the employee and her twins and found there was good reason for the delay, as the Commissioner had also accepted.

On whether it was just and equitable, the Tribunal applied four factors drawn from earlier court decisions: the length of the delay, the reasons for it, any prejudice to the other side, and the merits of the underlying claim. Four months is not long in itself, but it is a third of the 12-month limit, and the Tribunal found the delay disproportionate given that the employee believed by October 2024 that she had been discriminated against and was already arranging her return to work from September 2025. On prejudice, the Tribunal found that once 12 months passes a respondent is entitled to assume no complaint is coming, so records may be culled and witness memories fade, and there was a real likelihood of significant prejudice to the Department. The Tribunal made no assessment of the merits, because neither side put submissions on them, though it noted parts of the complaint, such as the kennelling conditions for the dogs, were matters the Commissioner considered could not be dealt with under the Equal Opportunity Act. It accepted the employee's point that the merits would now never be examined, but held that the time limit is a substantive rule serving certainty, finality and fair hearings, not a mere formality.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, this decision shows how strictly time limits in discrimination law are applied. Under the South Australian Equal Opportunity Act a complaint has to reach the Commissioner within 12 months of the act complained of. Having a genuinely good reason for being late, even one as serious as a premature birth and months of hospital treatment, gets you over only the first of two hurdles. The decision-maker still has to be satisfied it is just and equitable to extend time, weighing the length of the delay, the reason for it, the prejudice to the other side and the strength of the underlying claim.

It also shows that treating several problems as one continuing course of conduct is not straightforward. Arguing that everything flowed from the same cause, such as a pregnancy, does not by itself make the events a "series of acts" that pushes the deadline out to the most recent one. The events themselves have to be linked. Later conversations about returning to work or about a separate ongoing grievance may be treated as fresh and unconnected matters rather than a continuation of what happened earlier.

In practice, most people in this kind of dispute start by putting the concern in writing to the employer, or lodging a written complaint with the equal opportunity body, with dates and specific incidents set out, and only go to a tribunal application if that does not resolve it. Doing the written step early also fixes the date, which matters when a limitation period is running.

How to apply: our step-by-step guide to a SACAT application. More decisions: SACAT cases and employment and wages.

Source: Jones v Commissioner for Equal Opportunity [2026] SACAT 76 (read the full decision). This summary was prepared from the published decision for general information. It is not legal advice, and the tribunal’s own reasons are the authoritative record.