Sat’s son wins discrimination case

The award was made yesterday by the Equal Opportunities Tribunal (EOT) at the commission’s offices at Manic Street in Chaguanas.

Presiding over the complaint filed by Maharaj were chairman of the EOT Rajmanlal Joseph and lay assessors Leela Ramdeen and Harridath Maharaj.

In assessment of damages, the Immigration Division of the Ministry of National Security was ordered to pay Maharaj $231,303.80 in general and aggravated damages with interest, as well as $230,400 in special damages, also with interest.

Maharaj will also receive costs in the sum of $69,255.57.

The EOT had in 2015 gave judgment in Maharaj’s favour after the Immigration Division failed to file a defence to the complaint. Maharaj, in his original complaint, spoke of being told by an Immigration Division officer, upon his return to Trinidad on March 19, 2008, “Ent Sat Maharaj is your father? You ain’t need to work, yuh father carry the Government to court for the Trinity Cross and radio licence. Go let them fix it!” According to Maharaj’s complaint, when he returned to Trinidad from Canada his passport was stamped ‘employment not permitted’ although he is a TT national. He was forced to file a judicial review application in 2013 and the High Court judge ordered the Chief Immigration Officer to remove the stamp or modify it.

It was only then that the Chief Immigration Officer struck out the word, ‘not’, and wrote: “The bearer is a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago and is permitted to work.” Maharaj said he is a citizen of TT by virtue of descent. He said because of the restriction he was forced to decline employment as a journalist.

Maharaj calculated he would have earned $72,000 in year one and $158,400, for the second and third years of a three-year contract offered to him by the TT Mirror.

He said he was left embarrassed and humiliated. Maharaj said he suffered loss of income from his tattoo business Unscathed Tattoo Studio from March 2008 to September 2013, amounting to $3.2 million.

Comments

"Sat’s son wins discrimination case"

More in this section