were in a comparable situation to the plaintiff (other contract employees). The Court found that the plaintiff had been discriminated against when the formula used meant that she received less benefits than other secretariat staff who were on contract. 60. In the present matter, the Claimant, Eliza Steven, ought to have demonstrated to this Court that she has been treated differently as compared to other employees in an analogous position (comparable situation) by the inclusion of domestic workers in the list of exempted employees from the mandatory occupational pension scheme. The Claimant should have also demonstrated that she has been treated differently because of the existence of any of the analogous grounds for discrimination in section 20(1) of the Constitution. 61. This Court finds that section 11 of the Pension Act does not prescribe requirements that exclude the 1st Claimant from being placed on pension on the basis of a particular analogous ground listed in section 20(1) of the Constitution. In fact, section 11 of the Pension Act does not restrict employers from providing pension to their domestic workers. Section 11 of the Pension Act does not directly discriminate against the 1st Claimant. 62. To restate, section 11 merely empowers the Minister to exempt a class or category of employees from the mandatory occupational pension scheme. The 1st Claimant alleges that by issuing the Pension (Exemption) Order, through which domestic workers are exempted from the mandatory occupational pension scheme, the Minister responsible for Finance actuates the indirect discrimination in section 11 of the Pension Act. Thus, the consequential Page 23 of 45