Government will set up a Board of Inquiry to assess whether Mrs. Delores Lightbourne's former employers discriminated against her when they gave her job to a foreign worker.

But Mrs. Lighbourne, who failed to show up at a meeting the Ministry of Human Affairs organised last month, runs the risk of having the Board of Inquiry rule in favour of her former employers if she misses another meeting to be held in a few days.

"The delays which have occured have been entirely of Mrs. Lightbourne's own making,'' Human Affairs director Lowdru Robinson said.

Mrs. Lightbourne was hired temporarily to care for an elderly lady but was let go on August 11, 1990. Her job was given to a foreign worker. One reason given was that the family could not afford the $10 an hour fee that she charged.

Although the Human Rights Commission found that she had been discriminated against because she was Bermudian, it was unable to get either Mrs.

Lightbourne or her former employers to agree on a settlement.

Mrs. Lightbourne has waged a constant battle for justice since she was relieved of her job. This has included writing letters to the Attorney General and Labour Minister Quinton Edness.

Mr. Edness has said he can do nothing for her and the Attorney General has decided not to prosecute the case.

Mrs. Lightbourne is seeking one year and three months wages, interest on that sum and pay for as long as the non-Bermudian worker is employed by the family she had worked for.

But she is worried that the statute of limitations may run out before she is able to have her case heard in a court of law.

Mr. Robinson meanwhile was responding to a story in yesterday's edition of The Royal Gazette .

In that article, Mrs. Lightbourne claimed that several attempts at justice have been turned down even though the HRC had found that she was the victim of discrimination.

Moreover, the HRC found that the only reason for dismissing Mrs. Lightbourne was economic, because a professional nurse specialising in geriatric care testified that the foreign worker was unskilled.

The HRC also found that her employers made unsubstantiated allegations that the elderly woman Mrs. Lightbourne was taking care of had bed sores because she had been left in her own urine.

The Commission found that the elderly lady had a rash not open sores.

Nonetheless the HRC said that despite their alleged concerns, her employers never informed Mrs. Lightbourne of them or gave her an opportunity to adjust her hourly rate.

Although she was hired on a temporary basis, the Commission found that her "employers had no intention of employing a Bermudian on a full-time basis''.

The position was advertised on October, 18, 19 and 20 in 1989. At the time one Bermudian applied for the post but was found unsuitable because she could do no heavy lifting.

Her employers then applied to the Department of Immigration for permission to go overseas to fill the position.

Mrs. Lightbourne had been given the job on a temporary basis starting on October 23, 1989, but the Immigration department was not informed of this and it granted permission to seek a foreign applicant on November 24, 1989.

In a prepared statement, Mr. Robinson sought to set the record straight regarding Government's involvement.

He said: "Mrs. Delores Lightbourne's version of her five year quest for justice published in (yesterday's) Royal Gazette is remarkably one-sided.

"Mrs. Lightbourne complained to the Human Rights Commission in 1991 that she had been unfairly discriminated against by an employer, now deceased.

"The Commission found in her favour, but could not get the two parties to agree (to) an amount in settlement.

"As a consequence, the Commission referred her case to the Minister (John Irving Pearman) early in 1992 and it recommended that a Board of Inquiry be appointed as provided for in the Human Rights Act.'' Mr. Robinson said the board acts independently of any finding by the HRC as it takes evidence again and comes to its own determination on whether the Human Rights Act was transgressed.

Subsequently, Kevin George was chosen to head the Board of Inquiry but he wrote to the Ministry in October 1992 and said Mrs. Lightbourne's attorneys told him that she did not want to proceed with the case at that time.

Their reasoning, he added, was that they were seeking an alternative solution to the problem.

In April, 1993 the Ministry received a letter from Mrs. Lightbourne complaining that her case had not been heard.

"Mr. George wrote to her, explained what had happened and asked that she call or write to him confirming her wish to go ahead,'' Mr. Robinson continued.

"On June 22, (1993) Mrs. Lightbourne wrote to the Minister directing him to settle the affair by the end of the month, but (she) never did reply to Mr.

George's letter.'' Mr. Robinson said his Ministry did not hear from her again until December, 1995. At that time he received a letter from another group of attorneys who were acting for her.

Before a date could be set, he said she switched to another set of attorneys who then advised the Board that she wished to withdraw the complaint.

In June, 1996 he said her former employer's estate wrote to find out whether any progress had been made and Mr. George scheduled a meeting of all the parties.

He wrote to Mrs. Lightbourne at her home address but the letter was returned unopened.

"In July an official of the Ministry called Mrs. Lightbourne to inform her of the meeting,'' Mr. Robinson said. "She listened for a short time then hung up.

"A few days later, I called her to try to make sure she would appear at the meeting but she refused to talk. The meeting was held but she did not appear and was not represented.''