The owner of a Canberra KFC franchise discriminated against an employee by providing inadequate support for her breastfeeding needs, a tribunal has found.
"[The woman] suffered humiliation, hurt and distress," ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal presidential member Heidi Robinson said in a decision published on Tuesday.
"The respondent has not adjusted to the needs of a modern workplace where women can give birth, breastfeed their children, and return to the workforce in a welcoming and accommodating fashion."
The complaint was initially lodged with the ACT Human Rights Commission against Southern Restaurants (Vic) Pty Ltd, which is part of the largest private KFC franchise owner in Australia.
It was later referred to the tribunal and heard in a March hearing, where the company was found to have "unreasonably disadvantaged" the employee.
The woman, aged in her early twenties, first began working for the franchise's Yass store aged 14 and moved to the Tuggeranong store in 2020, soon after being promoted to assistant restaurant manager.
She planned to return from parental leave in November 2021 but was told the "big bosses" found her requests for shifts accommodating her childcare arrangements to be not ideal.
She was soon after asked to attend a meeting with the area manager and a restaurant manager.
"[One man] questioned her in a way that made her feel pressured to wean or formula feed her child," Ms Robinson said.
Meeting questions included what the woman would do if no other managers were on shift when she needed to breastfeed off-site.
"She felt the implication was that it was her responsibility to find a solution," Ms Robinson said.
The woman felt obliged to provide an in-depth explanation about how milk supply worked in accordance with her child's feeding schedule when the other man asked if she could solely express outside her shift times.
The first man repeatedly recommended the woman ask other mothers employed by the company how they managed their breastfeeding responsibilities.
"The applicant felt humiliated and undermined by that suggestion," the tribunal presidential member said.
"She felt they were [implying] that she could not make her own decisions about what was appropriate for her and her child, and questioned her decision to continue breastfeeding."
The tribunal described the two men's conduct as concerning.
The company later informed the woman they could not provide the private room and comfortable chair she requested because "it's not practical and too costly to accommodate".
She was told she could not leave the store during meal breaks to express milk elsewhere.
That was, "because it would affect the health and safety of other employees and patrons" if no other trained manager was on-site, as required by company policy.
It was instead suggested she take a demotion and become a casual team member.
When the woman eventually returned to work in early 2022, she did not find the "pop-up tent and foldout chair" she had been promised.
Ms Robinson described the "privacy shield", which arrived on the woman's second day back, as a "smallish tentlike cover provided for a camping toilet".
"The tribunal is satisfied that the 'tent/privacy shield', located as it was in an open, doorless storeroom that staff were otherwise required to enter to obtain necessary supplies, was not an appropriate place for the applicant to express milk," Ms Robinson said.
"The tribunal accepts the applicant's evidence that the arrangements had the effect of causing her embarrassment and discomfort."
For the following months, the woman worked at the Tuggeranong store and would only leave to express milk at a nearby shopping centre's "parents room" during meal breaks if another manager was on-site.
According to the tribunal, there were frequently no other managers on-site, forcing the woman not to take such breaks.
She resigned in late 2022.
The matter is set to return later this week to determine the next steps in the proceedings.
