A waterfront security guard who was sacked for having an anti-coal dust sticker on her car is suing her employer under anti-discrimination laws.



Former Port of Brisbane security officer Kym Garrick is seeking an apology and financial compensation for what her lawyers allege was a breach of her “right to have a political view”.



Lawyers for Garrick filed the claim – who remains unemployed after her dismissal by port authorities and security contractor Corporate Protection Australia in August – in the Queensland anti-discrimination commission on Thursday.



The sticker, displayed on the back window of Garrick’s private car while parked at work, read: “Coal dust free Brisbane”.



Giri Sivaraman, a solicitor and principal with Maurice Blackburn, said it was clear Garrick “lost her job because her employers did not like her displaying political signage in her own car”.



“Put simply, she was not given a fair go – she was discriminated against for exercising her right to have a political view,” he said.



“Both Ms Garrick’s former employers made repeated, clear breaches of the Anti-Discrimination Act, including directing her to remove the signs from her car, banning her from Port of Brisbane sites because of the signs and then dismissing her from her job.



“She was later advised she wouldn’t be provided with further employment unless she removed the signs from her car.



“Not only were these actions discriminatory, they are also a disappointing and retrograde step – in 2014 employers need to be doing better than simply firing people for expressing a point of view.”



The lawsuit does not specify a dollar figure for compensation, which would be the result of mediation overseen by the commission were the claim to proceed.



Anti-discrimination laws protected workers from discrimination by bosses because of their political beliefs or actions, Sivaraman said.



“The actions of the Port of Brisbane and CPA have come at a great cost to Ms Garrick – she loved her job and she’s had to endure the humiliation of being dismissed, despite the fact that it is not disputed she was good at her job.”



Both the Port and CPA declined to comment.

