Skip to main content

Conciliation Register

Act Sex Discrimination Act
Grounds Family responsibilities
Sex
Areas Employment
Outcome details

Compensation

Amount $6,000
Year

The complainant alleged that the respondent not-for-profit organisation denied her request to work from home during school holidays to enable her to care for her three children. She alleged she was told she would not be able to meet the requirements of her role while looking after her children.

The organisation claimed the complainant’s role required her to be present in the office.

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The organisation agreed to pay the complainant $6,000 as general damages.

 

Act Disability Discrimination Act
Grounds Disability
Areas Goods, services and facilities
Outcome details

Goods/services/facilities provided

Amount -
Year

The complainant’s niece has a mobility impairment, low vision, Down’s Syndrome and is on the autism spectrum. He alleged the respondent government authority discriminated against his niece by not granting her request for a disability parking permit.

 

The government authority said it had been unable to issue the disability parking permit to the complainant’s niece due to insufficient/inappropriate supporting documentation. The government authority issued the complainant’s niece a disability parking permit on the basis of supporting documents provided with the complaint. The complainant considered the complaint resolved on this basis.

Act Disability Discrimination Act
Grounds Disability
Areas Employment
Outcome details

Compensation

Amount $50,000
Year

The complainant has osteogenesis imperfecta type 1 (also known as “brittle bone disease) and otosclerosis (a condition of the middle and inner ear that can lead to hearing loss, tinnitus or vertigo, or a combination of these). She alleges the respondent council withdrew an offer of employment despite an independent pre-employment medical assessment concluding she could perform the role without adjustments.

 

The council said it received advice from a GP familiar with the requirements of the role that the complainant would not be able to perform the role safely.

 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the council pay the complainant $50,000 as general damages.

Act Sex Discrimination Act
Grounds Pregnancy
Areas Employment
Outcome details

Compensation

Amount $10,000
Year

The complainant alleged a verbal offer of employment in a senior human resources role with the respondent company was withdrawn once she disclosed she was pregnant.

 

The company denied making an offer of employment to the complainant.

 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $10,000.

 

Act Disability Discrimination Act
Grounds Disability
Areas Employment
Outcome details

Employment - adjustments provided

Amount -
Year

The complainant has a vision impairment and is employed by the respondent community legal service. She alleged she was not provided with flexibility and other workplace adjustments in a timely manner, was required to continually explain her disability and related needs and had specialised equipment withdrawn.

 

The centre denied discriminating against the complainant but indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation.

 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant return to the workplace with the assistance of a disability employment service. It was agreed a number of adjustments would be provided to accommodate the complainant’s disability, including a workstation that was set up to meet the complainant’s needs.

Act Disability Discrimination Act
Grounds Disability
Areas Employment
Outcome details

Compensation

Amount $7,500
Year

The complainant said he provided his employer with a medical certificate advising against COVID 19 vaccination because he developed a medical condition as a result of an adverse reaction to his first vaccination. He was later directed by his employer to only work from home and not to attend the workplace, work meetings or functions, which he claimed had a negative impact on his mental health. The complainant resigned from his employment after receiving notice that he was not in compliance with vaccination requirements.

 

The employer claimed the complainant failed to demonstrate that he was medically exempt from requirements for booster COVID 19 vaccinations.

 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the employer pay the complainant $7,500.

 

Act Disability Discrimination Act
Grounds Disability
Victimisation
Outcome details
  • Apology - Private

  • Policy - anti-discrimination/EEO policy developed

  • Training - anti-discrimination/EEO training reviewed/revised

Amount -
Year

The complainant's two children have Autism Spectrum Disorder, Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder, demand avoidance traits, and other processing disorders. She alleged that the respondent faith-based K-12 school and its principal did not make reasonable adjustments to respond to the children’s behaviours of concern and disciplined the children rather than treating their behaviours as manifestations of their disabilities. She says that when she raised concerns, she was told that if she kept questioning the school's management of her children, their enrolment would be terminated. 

 

The school said the children were provided with reasonable adjustments and argued that it was reasonable to implement measures, including disciplinary measures, when the children's behaviour posed a risk to staff and student safety. 

 

The complaint was resolved. The school agreed to write to the complainant expressing its regret and apologies that she did not feel like she had been respected or heard. The school also confirmed that it would continue to review its policies and procedures about anti-discrimination and regularly provide staff with training on anti-discrimination and managing challenging behaviours.

Act Other discrimination in employment
Grounds Criminal record
Areas Employment
Outcome details

Compensation

Amount $500
Year

The complainant alleged an offer of employment with the respondent telecommunications company was withdrawn due to his criminal record – possession of firearms and unsafe storage of firearms. He alleged the requirement for a criminal record check was not made clear to him during the interview.

 

The company advised employees must be of good character and have no criminal record because they have close contact with vulnerable people. The company said the requirement for a criminal record check was made clear during and following the interview.

 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $500.

Act Disability Discrimination Act
Grounds Assistance animal
Disability
Areas Goods, services and facilities
Outcome details
  • Apology - Private

  • Policy change/Change in practice (external customers)

Amount -
Year

The complainant has a psychosocial disability and has an assistance dog. She alleged she could not make a booking with the respondent pet-friendly accommodation provider because her dog is not a small non-shedding animal.

 

On being advised of the complaint the holiday accommodation provider indicated a willingness to try to resolve the matter by conciliation.

 

The complaint was resolved by conciliation. The holiday accommodation provider undertook to update its website to reflect its obligations towards potential guests with assistance animals and apologised to the complainant for not accepting her booking.

Act Disability Discrimination Act
Grounds Disability
Areas Goods, services and facilities
Outcome details
  • Apology - Private

  • Training - anti-discrimination/EEO training reviewed/revised 

Year

The complainant has a disability that manifests as him walking with a limp. He alleged the respondent hotel denied him and friends entry because it incorrectly assumed he was intoxicated.

 

The hotel said that security have to ensure compliance with liquor licensing rules which require visual assessments of a person to determine if they are intoxicated. However, security are required to escalate to a manager if a person informs them that what could be interpreted as a sign of intoxication is actually a manifestation of a disability.

 

The complaint was resolved after the hotel apologised to the complainant for the incident and undertook to deliver refresher training on disability awareness to staff.

 

Act Racial Discrimination Act
Grounds Ethnic origin
Race
Areas Goods, services and facilities
Other section 9
Outcome details

Statement of regret - private

Amount -
Year

The complainant is Chinese and attended the respondent business. He said he tried to fill up his water bottle in the parents’ room and was approached by a staff member who told him he could not use the room unless it was for parenting purposes. The staff member asked the complainant his name, which he refused to give. The complainant alleged the staff member then started guessing Asian sounding names in a mocking manner.

 

The business denied discrimination and agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

 

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the business to write to the complainant expressing regret for his experience and setting out measures taken by the business to prevent discrimination.

Act Sex Discrimination Act
Grounds sex-based harassment
Sexual harassment
Victimisation
Areas Employment
Outcome details

Compensation

Amount $25,000
Year

The complainant alleged a colleague at the café where she worked sexually harassed her, including by asking her about her sex life, making comments of sexual nature about female customers, touching her breasts and lower back while passing by and exhibiting his arm and abdominal muscles. She claimed she complained about the alleged conduct and helped a colleague complaint about similar conduct. The complainant alleged that following her complaints, her hours were reduced and she was eventually sent an exit survey, despite remaining an employee.

 

The café denied the allegations of sexual harassment but agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

 

The complaint was resolved by conciliation with an agreement that the café pay the complainant $25,000.

 

Act Disability Discrimination Act
Grounds Disability
Areas Goods, services and facilities
Insurance
Outcome details

Compensation

Amount $1,900
Year

The complainant alleged the respondent insurer denied her application for income protection insurance because she has a history of psychosocial disability. She claimed the insurer did not properly take into account the fact that she has managed her disability while working.

 

The insurer denied discriminating against the complainant but indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the insurer pay the complainant $1,900 in compensation.

 

Act Racial Discrimination Act
Grounds Ethnic origin
National origin/extraction
Race
Racial hatred
Areas Goods, services and facilities
Other section 9
Racial hatred
Outcome details

Apology - Private

Amount -
Year

The complainants are Chinese and attended the respondent store, where they were comparing the prices of products on sale to prices of the same products in China. They alleged the store’s owner told them she did not like Chinese people and told them to leave.

 

On being notified of the complaint, the store’s owner apologised to the complainants for the incident. The complainants considered their complaint resolved on this basis.

Act Sex Discrimination Act
Grounds Sex
Sexual harassment
Areas Education
Employment
Outcome details

Compensation

Amount $60,000
Year

The complainant was a student at the respondent university and worked as a life guard at an aquatic centre operated by the university. She alleged a colleague sexually harassed her, including by touching parts of her body, kissing her cheeks, slapping her on the bottom and telling her she was “hot” and “pretty”. She said she made a complaint to the university about the alleged conduct and that, following an investigation, the university took steps to separate them in the workplace. The complainant alleges that due to a scheduling error, she was rostered to work with her colleague and felt unsafe to return to work after that time.

 

The university denied that the alleged conduct constituted sexual harassment. The university claimed it was not vicariously liable for any sexual harassment in the workplace, as it took all reasonable steps to prevent such conduct and responded appropriately to reports of its occurrence.

 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the university pay the complainant $60,000 as general damages.