Employers in Bermuda are still discriminating against workers on the grounds of pregnancy, race and political persuasion, according to recently-released reports from the Human Rights Commission (HRC).

Delayed annual reports for the years 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, which have now been tabled in the House of Assembly, reveal that the quango conducted 40 formal investigations during the four-year period.

The reports do not detail each case but highlight examples, including a number of situations where women lost their jobs after becoming pregnant and where workers received less pay than their colleagues due to race.

In 2002, the HRC found in favour of a clerk who, after telling her employer she was to have a child, was told: ?You are no good to us pregnant.?

The woman was asked to start looking for another job as her position would no longer be available to her when she was a mother.

The case was settled when the company involved, which accepted the HRC?s finding, paid the employee financial compensation.

The following year, a woman complained to the HRC that a job offer made to her was retracted after she told her future employers that she was pregnant. ?The Commission took the position that there was evidence of discrimination which was contrary to the Human Rights Act 1981,? says the report. ?The respondent (company) rejected the Human Rights Commission?s determination and the dispute was subsequently settled in favour of the complainant at a Board of Inquiry.?

In 2004, six black employees of a local firm alleged pay discrimination against their employer. The complainants claimed that they were doing substantially the same work as a white colleague but being paid less than that white colleague.

The report says: ?The respondent denied discrimination. They maintained that the discrepancy in pay between the six blacks and the one white was to do with ?market conditions? at the time of hiring and the confidential negotiations between the company and the one white worker.

?The Commission was not endeared with the defence put forward by the respondent company. The commission was of the view that the Human Rights Act 1981 did not make allowances for ?market conditions? and that the prohibition on equal pay discrimination was strict and that in the absence of a system at the place of employment which recognises seniority, productivity or merit system, there was discrimination. The Commission issued a preliminary finding in favour of the complainants.?

In 2002, two complaints were about discrimination based on political opinion, one was on the grounds of sexual harassment and one was on the grounds of family status.

In 2003, sexual harassment allegations led to four formal investigations, family status led to one and political opinion led to one. There were several investigations into racial discrimination in employment.

In 2004, six formal investigations were conducted on the grounds of place of origin. The 2005 report did not break down the investigations on the basis of grounds of complaint.

The Commission is required to complete investigations into complaints within nine months but the reports show that it often takes it longer. ?The Commission must aim to complete its investigations in that time frame,? says the 2005 report.

The 2003 report reveals that the Commission discussed whether discrimination based on sexual orientation should be outlawed three years ago.

A draft bill put forward by PLP backbencher Ren?e Webb to that effect was quashed in parliament in the summer.

The 2003 report says the Commission was divided on the topic but reached a consensus that it should be included in the legislation.

Deputy HRC chairman Maryanne Scott writes in her introduction to the four reports: ?Some of these reports are nearly four years late. There is no good or sufficient reason for this delay. Although they are very late, we believe that their contents are informative and hope that the reports can still be put to good use.?