Conciliation Register

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.

The complainant’s son is on the Autism spectrum, has Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder, Generalised Anxiety Disorder and a pathological demand avoidance profile. She claimed the respondent public school failed to appropriately accommodate her son’s disability, resulting in school refusal.

On being informed of the complaint, the school denied discriminating against the complainant’s son and indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the department responsible for the operation of the school pay the complainant $30,000 as general damages and write to her family apologising for their experience. The complainant was offered the opportunity to share her son’s story and experience with the department and participate in a review of access and inclusion for students with disability.

The complainant has a vision impairment and tried to obtain a quote for car insurance from the respondent insurer’s website, but found the website inaccessible. He claimed that when he contacted the insurer, he was informed it did not offer products for people with a vision impairment.

The insurer advised that in response to the complainant’s original complaint to the insurer, it had made some changes to its website and processes to enable potential customers with a vision impairment to more easily obtain a quote for car insurance.

The complainant considered that the steps taken by the insurer to address the concerns he raised resolved his complaint.

The complainant advised she is of South Asian origin and has brown skin. She alleged that while on a flight with the respondent airline, a senior member of the flight crew was unpleasant and rude towards her. She claimed the same crew member was pleasant and polite to non-Asian passengers. She claimed the airline did not respond appropriately to her concerns and did not contact a witness who would corroborate her version of events.

The airline denied discrimination and apologised if customer service during the flight did not meet the complainant’s expectations. The airline said the complainant directed enquiries towards to the crew member at a time where her primary focus was the safe boarding of passengers and her ability to respond to individual requests for assistance was limited. The airline said it serves refreshments to passengers in a particular order and the complainant requested to be provided with refreshments before her turn.

The complaint was resolved. The airline’s CEO wrote to the complainant apologising that the service she received did not meet her expectations. The airline also paid the complainant approximately $450 in compensation.

The complainant is blind and has a guide dog. He claimed he was unable to safely cross a street near his home because although there was a pedestrian safety zone, there was no way for him to detect the location of the zone. He said he had asked his local council on several occasions to address the issue with no result.

The local council advised it was aware of the complainant's concerns but was not in a position to agree to individual requests for the installation of tactile ground surface indicators.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the local council would upgrade the crossing near the complainant's home and include resurfacing to ensure it is accessible to people who are blind.

The complainant alleged that a manager sexually harassed her by having unconsensual sex with her after a work Christmas party at his home when she was intoxicated and unconscious. The complainant was no longer employed with the company at the time the complaint was lodged.

The company claimed it could not be held liable for any alleged sexual harassment. The company said it had communicated with staff concerning conduct expectations prior to the party, food had been served at the event and the alleged sexual harassment occurred after the party ended and at a different location.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $55,000, review relevant policies and offer the complainant an opportunity to comment, commission appropriately qualified external trainers to deliver workplace behaviour training to managers, and commission trauma-informed training on sexual harassment for human resources staff.

The complainant is 83 years of age and holds a credit card with the respondent financial institution. The financial institution offers customers with this credit card free travel insurance. The complainant alleged he was unable to access this benefit because the respondent insurer did not offer travel insurance to people over 80 years of age at the time he sought to travel.

The respondents claimed any discrimination was not unlawful because they relied on statistical and actuarial data on which it was reasonable to rely when assessing eligibility.

The complaint was resolved. The insurer undertook to take the complainant’s concerns into consideration going forward and the financial institution waived its credit card membership fee for twelve months.

The complainant was employed as a senior lecturer at the respondent university. She alleged her manager sexually harassed her, including by staring at her body, touching her neck and hands, and asking personal questions. She also alleged her manager bullied her, undermined her and was hostile to her in meetings because of her sex. She claimed the university failed to respond appropriately to her complaints regarding the alleged conduct.

The university denied the allegations but agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the university pay the complainant $190,000 as general damages, write to her apologising for the hurt and distress she experienced and write to her outlining the outcome of its review into relevant policies and processes.

The complainant has a neurological condition and uses a wheelchair. She says that prior to booking a stay at the respondent hotel, she was informed the hotel was wheelchair accessible. She alleges when she arrived, she found not all facilities were wheelchair accessible, for example, furniture layout made parts of the room inaccessible, there was a step to access the balcony and the gym and pool facilities were accessed via steps.

The hotel said it understood the complainant to be inquiring about the accessibility of the in-room shower facilities. The hotel claimed offering wheelchair access to all its facilities would impose an unjustifiable hardship on it.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the hotel pay the complainant $100, deliver disability awareness training to all staff and update information on booking platforms about the accessibility of hotel rooms and facilities

The complainant has Autism Spectrum Disorder and says he can feel overwhelmed when given a lot of information. He said he became overwhelmed on his first day of work with the respondent organisation and took the second day as personal leave. He claimed on the third day, he was told he was not the right fit for the organisation and his employment was terminated.

The organisation denied the allegations and said it was not aware of the complainant’s disability. The organisation claimed the complainant’s behaviour was inconsistent with its code of conduct and unrelated to his disability.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the organisation pay the complainant approximately $2,320 as a gesture of goodwill.

The complainant has a 6 month old exclusively breastfed baby and applied to the respondent educational body to sit a tertiary level admissions test. She alleged she was informed two days before the exam that she would not be permitted to breastfeed her baby on demand but rather, during the lunch break. The complainant noted this would mean she would not have a lunch break like others sitting the exam.

On being advised of the complaint, the respondent agreed to participate in a conciliation process to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondent write to the complainant apologising for her experience and offer a refund for the cost of the exam. The respondent also undertook to review its processes and training to improve information provided to breastfeeding people sitting exams and consider accommodating the needs of breastfeeding people in the context of existing adjustment guidelines.

The complainant finds it difficult to stand for extended periods of time without short periods of rest due to a number of medical conditions. On commencing employment with the respondent clothing retailer, she requested some adjustments to accommodate her disability, including a kneeling stool and/or cushioned mat. She alleged the retailer denied her request, cancelled her induction training and rostered shifts and terminated her employment.

On being notified of the complaint, the retailer indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try and resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant be reinstated and offered adjustments to accommodate her disability, such as additional breaks and use of an anti-fatigue mat.

The complainant worked for the respondent real estate agency. She alleged that after being informed she was pregnant, colleagues made negative comments, including "you are pregnant and useless, go home". She claimed the agency denied her request to work from home for part of the day at her doctor’s recommendation even though other staff were permitted to work from home. The complainant alleged that after she raised concerns about the above, the agency removed her from a work-related chat group, instructed her colleagues not to nominate her as a secondary contact when absent and refused to attempt to resolve an underpayment concern.

The agency said it was unable to substantiate the alleged comments. The agency said it understood the complainant’s request to be for part-day paid personal leave rather than working from home and this was provided. The agency said it removed the complainant from the chat group and instructed colleagues not to name her as a secondary contact because she had commenced parental leave. The agency denied allegations of underpayment.

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship and the agency agreed to pay the complainant $10,000 as general damages in two instalments and provide her with a statement of service. The agency agreed to write to the complainant expressing regret for any comments or actions that she may have perceived as hurtful, insensitive or harmful.

The complainant has a spinal injury and uses a mobility scooter. He claimed he was unable to leave his home due to the lack of pavement outside his house, given he was told it was illegal to use his scooter on the road. 

On being notified of the complaint, the local council indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the local council modify the pavement on the complainant’s driveway and on the opposite side of the road to enable the complainant to safely access the footpath on the opposite side of the road with his scooter.

The complainant alleged the respondent real estate agent denied her access to a property because she was accompanied by an assistance dog.

The real estate company apologised to the complainant for her experience and expressed a desire to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved by conciliation. The real estate agent was counselled and attended anti-discrimination training. The company delivered training to its staff on their obligations towards people with disability and assistance animals, incorporating information and resources provided by the Commission.