Rachel Reshmi discontinued her Federal Court lawsuit against Amazon by consent on May 20. The terms of the settlement were not known.

Reshmi, who had previously been invited by the company to apply for a permanent position, alleges an Amazon commercial services representative informed her that she was no longer eligible for the role because she was pregnant.

Reshmi, who worked as a packer at a NSW Amazon fulfillment depot, received an email from HR firm Adecco in November 2019 informing her she had progressed to the interview stage for a new role at the depot.

In June, Reshmi allegedly received an email from Amazon stating it was offering permanent positions to Adecco associates who had worked for at least three months at the depot.

After submitting the required paperwork, including confirmation of her visa status and Fijian passport, Reshmi was allegedly contacted by Amanda Suber, a representative of Amazon.

Suber allegedly offered Reshmi work at Amazon and asked for her shift availabilities. But during the course of the discussion, Reshmi informed Suber that she was pregnant, according to the lawsuit.

Later in June, Suber allegedly told Reshmi that because of changes in her role “due to her pregnancy”, there were no permanent positions available to her. Suber followed up with a phone call later that day asking for medical certificates from Reshmi, which she provided a few days later, according to the lawsuit.

Not long afterwards, Reshmi allegedly attended a meeting with two Amazon representatives, Cassy Hoadley and Christian Ortiz, who told her in the meeting that her “pick” rates were low and that she had failed to attend work on two occasions — allegations Reshmi denied, the suit claimed.

Reshmi was advised at the end of the meeting that her application for a permanent role with Amazon had been denied.

According to the lawsuit, Reshmi suffered loss and damage as result of Amazon’s alleged refusal to employ her as well as “hurt, distress and humiliation”.

The lawsuit claims Amazon breached sections 342 and 351 of the Fair Work Act, which prohibits employers from refusing to employ potential workers because they are pregnant.

Reshmi sought monetary compensation and an order that Amazon pay penalties for its alleged contraventions of the the Fair Work Act.

Amazon denied the allegations when the lawsuit was filed, telling Lawyerly they were “untrue”.

“These allegations are untrue. As the matter is currently before the court, we are unable to comment further,” the spokesperson said.

The lawsuit was brought by Reshmi and the Shop, Distributive and the Allied Employees Association.

The case is Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees’ Association & Anor v Amazon Commercial Services Pty Ltd.

Amazon is represented by Seyfarth Shaw.

Copyright Lawyerly Media. A reprint licence is required to re-distribute Lawyerly content.