Hong Kong employer pays the price for unlawful disability discrimination

In Mary Ann Allas Pereira (the administratrix of the estate of Baby Jane Teodoro Allas, deceased) v Jamil Bushra [2026] HKDC 1148, the District Court ordered an employer to pay over HK$250,000 in damages following the dismissal of a critically ill foreign domestic helper (the “Employee”).

This case illustrates the approach adopted by Hong Kong courts in assessing damages in disability discrimination claims.

Facts

The Employee commenced employment under a 2-year contract in November 2017. She was subsequently diagnosed with cervical cancer in early 2019. Three days later, her employment was terminated.

Notably, the termination letter expressly referred to the Employee’s cervical cancer diagnosis as one of the reasons for termination.

With the assistance of the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), the Employee sued her employer (the “Respondent”) for disability discrimination in the District Court in December 2020.

Tragically, the Employee passed away a few months after the claim was filed. Her younger sister (the “Claimant”), as co-administratrix of the Employee’s estate, was granted leave to continue the proceedings on the Employee’s behalf.

The Respondent did not participate in the proceedings and a default judgment was entered against her, with damages to be assessed.

The decision

The Claimant sought damages for (i) loss of income, (ii) compensation for injury to feelings and (iii) medical expenses.

In determining the appropriate remedies, the court stressed that it would only consider the Respondent’s conduct that is unlawful under the Disability Discrimination Ordinance (DDO). Other unlawful acts should not be a relevant consideration.

(i) Loss of income

Based on the evidence, the court accepted that, but for the unlawful discrimination, the Employee would have remained employed through to the expiry of her fixed term contract. In reaching that conclusion, the court noted that there were no allegations of poor performance in either the termination letter or any contemporaneous evidence.

The court also took into account that the Employee had been certified as fit to work by a medical practitioner.

Accordingly, the court awarded the Claimant HK$33,367 for the Employee’s loss of income, being the salaries which the Employee would have earned during the remainder of her contract (i.e. 8 months and 23 days), less the one month’s salary in lieu of notice already paid by the Respondent.

(ii) Compensation for injury to feelings

In assessing damages for injury to feelings, the learned Judge adopted the three broad bands of compensation (commonly known as the “Vento bands”) as updated by the Hong Kong District Court in Chan Wing Kum (陈咏琴) v Ming’s Piano Limited (第一流行钢琴教室有限公司) [2024] HKDC 2046 (see our earlier legal update on this case here).

The updated “Vento bands” applicable in Hong Kong are as follows:

The court took into account (among other things) the following factors and held that the disability discrimination in this case fell within the first half of the “middle” band:-

1. 1. 1. The act of discrimination was one-off. Nevertheless, the Employee was dismissed just three days after receiving a life-threatening cancer diagnosis. In the circumstances, the dismissal would have been a significant emotional blow when she was already dealing with the shock and anxiety arising from her illness.
      2. The Employee had worked for the Respondent and her family for around 15 months, performed her duties competently and enjoyed a good relationship with them. The court accepted that she would likely have felt a sense of betrayal following her sudden dismissal.
      3. The Employee suffered substantial emotional distress following her dismissal. She frequently cried, experienced difficulty sleeping and eating, and was left in a nervous and distressed state.
      4. The Employee was the sole breadwinner of her family, supporting five young children and her elderly mother. The dismissal therefore not only caused her serious emotional distress but also significant financial pressure.
      5. The Respondent never apologised to the Employee during her lifetime.
      6. The dismissal rendered the Employee’s work visa invalid after a two-week period and made her ineligible for subsidised public healthcare in Hong Kong. This left her with limited options for timely and affordable medical treatment.

The court held that it was fair, reasonable and just to award HK$120,000 to the Claimant as compensation for injury to the Employee’s feelings.

(iii) Medical expenses

As a result of the termination, the Employee lost her eligibility for subsidised public healthcare in Hong Kong. Given the limited availability of medical treatment in the Employee’s hometown in the Philippines and her critical, life-threatening medical condition, the court accepted that it was reasonable for her to seek prompt private medical treatment in Hong Kong. Hence, the court held that the additional medical expenses of close to HK$100,000 incurred by the Employee as a result of her dismissal were recoverable.

Turning to costs, the normal rule that costs follow the event does not apply in discrimination proceedings. Instead, each party will generally be required to bear their own costs unless the proceedings are brought maliciously or frivolously or there are special circumstances which warrant an award of costs.

In this case, the court found that there were special circumstances justifying a costs order against the Respondent. The Respondent refused to engage with the EOC’s conciliation process and settlement negotiations, evaded service of court documents, and did not even participate in the proceedings. Such uncooperative behaviour forced the Claimant to unnecessarily pursue the action to its conclusion.

Key takeaways

Where an employer decides to terminate the employment of a sick employee, they should ensure that the decision is based solely on legitimate reasons unrelated to the employee’s disability. Employers should also maintain clear documentary record of the reasons underpinning that decision, as such documents may often come under close scrutiny in the event of a dispute.

Discrimination claims are relatively easy to allege but can be resource intensive to defend. They may also attract adverse publicity and give rise to significant reputational and employee relations issues.

The judgment is available here.