Conciliation Register

The complainant alleged the respondent taxi driver refused to carry her because she was accompanied by an assistance dog. She alleged the respondent taxi company did not respond appropriately to her complaint about the incident.

The taxi company denied the allegations of discrimination.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the taxi company write to the complainant apologising for the incident and offer her a $100 voucher.

The complainant has a learning disability and alleged the respondent superannuation fund discriminated against her by failing to offer face-to-face assistance to customers.

The superannuation fund denied unlawfully discriminating against the complainant but acknowledged there may have been miscommunication about her concerns. The fund said face-to-face support is not generally offered to customers because its staff benefit from hybrid working arrangements and live in different states. The fund said assistance was offered to the complainant by email, phone and video conferencing.

The complaint was resolved by conciliation with an agreement that the complainant would be offered face-to-face assistance as required with a select staff member in the complainant’s home city. The fund apologised to the complainant for her experience.

The complainant’s son is transgender and has Bipolar Disorder, Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and identifies as neurodivergent. The complainant said her son’s public school holds two compulsory residential schools each year. She alleged the respondent school principal denied her son permission to attend a residential school, saying he could not share sleeping quarters with other boys or sleep on his own and citing concerns for his safety. The complainant said her son had previously attended residential schools without incident and the principal made the decision without consulting her, her son or his treating professionals.

The complaint was resolved. The complainant reported that, on being notified of the complaint, the school became amenable to consider inclusion of her son in residential schools and ultimately gave him permission to attend.

The complainant is of Chinese background and undertook an internship at the respondent childcare centre, where the majority of staff are of Indian background. He alleged he was discriminated against on the ground of his race, including by being excluded from cultural events, being allocated non-educational and menial tasks, being excluded from conversations largely undertaken in the Hindi language and receiving a less favourable internship report than a fellow intern of Indian background.

The childcare centre denied discriminating against the complainant but offered to write to him expressing regret for his experience and any distress it may have caused. The complainant considered his complaint resolved on this basis.

The complainant has chronic pain and is in receipt of the disability support pension. He said the respondent car manufacturer issued a recall of his car, requiring owners to attend approved service centres for repair. The complainant alleged the nearest approved service centre was over 100 Km from his home and he was unable to make the trip because of his disability.

The car manufacturer denied unlawful discrimination and said mechanics working on its cars must be duly trained and accredited to undertake certain electrical repairs.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the car manufacturer would write to the complainant apologising for the events giving rise to the complaint and would allow his local mechanic to repair the car at no cost to the complainant.

The complainant has severe neuropathy in his hands and feet, chronic diabetes, mobility issues and was recovering from recent surgery on his right arm. He alleged staff at the respondent supermarket refused to assist him retrieve items from its shelves unless he provided a medical certificate and threatened to have him removed from the store when he became upset about this and their refusal to provide him with a copy of the relevant policy.

On being advised of the complaint, the supermarket indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved by conciliation. The supermarket apologised to the complainant for his experience and agreed to pay him $1,000.

The complainant’s three and a half-year-old son has Level 2 Autism Spectrum Disorder and attended the respondent childcare centre. The complainant alleged the childcare centre declined her requests for adjustments to accommodate her son’s disability, such as a behaviour support plan, ability to bring his own food and time to transition between different rooms. She alleged the childcare centre often sent her son home and ended his enrolment three weeks after being informed of a formal diagnosis. The complainant alleged the childcare centre was hostile toward her because she advocated on behalf of her son.

The childcare centre denied discriminating against the complainant or her son.

The complaint was resolved by conciliation with an agreement that the childcare centre write to the complainant apologising for her experience and pay her $1,000. The childcare centre also undertook to review its policies and processes with regard to the inclusion of children with disability in consultation with an external party.

The complainant was engaged by a labour hire agency to work at the respondent government agency. She said she was the only woman in the office and alleged vacancies were filled by men despite her suggesting the agency should employ more women. She alleged colleagues made jokes about women, were patronising towards her, took over her work tasks, spoke over her at meetings and put down her ideas. She alleged that when she raised concerns about this conduct, she was told she had no future at the agency and should seek work elsewhere and her contract was terminated.

The agency denied discriminating against the complainant. It said vacancies were filled on a merit basis and that the alleged comments were either denied or taken out of context.

The complaint was resolved by conciliation with an agreement that the agency pay the complainant $25,000 and write to her expressing regret for her experience and any associated distress. The agency undertook to review its policies and procedures concerning complaints by contractors.

The complainant’s mother is 87 years of age and is a customer of the respondent telecommunications company. He alleged the company required customers to use apps to manage and alter their service. He alleged his mother’s age made it very difficult for her to learn how to use these apps confidently and he was not authorised to access the apps on her behalf.

The company noted customers are able to seek assistance with managing and altering their services by attending a store, contacting the company by phone or using an online chat bot.

The complaint was resolved. The complainant and his mother attended a company store, where a customer service manager helped resolve issues the complainant’s mother was experiencing with her phone, changed the platform language to the complainant’s mother’s preferred language and provided the complainant with authority to access his mother’s account.

The complainant’s wife has difficulty walking and sometimes uses a wheelchair. He said the respondent cinema was located on an upper floor accessible only via stairs because the lift had been inoperative for several months.

The cinema advised the lift had been assessed as “non-repairable” and responsibility for replacement of the lift rested with the building’s owner. On being notified of the complaint, the building’s owner advised the process of replacing the lift had already begun.

The complaint was resolved after the building owner outlined the steps and expected completion dates for replacement of the lift and apologised to the complainant for his wife’s experience.

The complainant advised her son has Autism Spectrum Disorder and Attention Deficit Disorder and attended the respondent faith-based kindergarten. She alleged the kindergarten failed to appropriately accommodate her son’s disability or implement strategies she suggested to help her son self-regulate. She alleged the kindergarten was delaying her son’s return to school and avoiding her attempts to communicate with the kindergarten.

The kindergarten said the complainant’s son had not been diagnosed with any disability and outlined a number of strategies it had put in place to support the complainant’s son.

The complaint was resolved by conciliation with an agreement that the kindergarten waive approximately $280 in outstanding fees.

The complainant has Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder and anxiety and is the sole carer of her 11-year-old child. She said that shortly after commencing with the respondent engineering company she asked to be able to work from home because she was ill. She claimed that, despite other staff being able to work from home, the Chief Financial Officer told her she could not because her role was office-based. She alleged that during a performance review she was told “It would be better for the company if you stopped having health and family issues.” She said she felt she had no option but to resign after the company rejected a request to work from home one day a week to accommodate her family responsibilities. 

The company denied discriminating against the complainant.

The complaint was resolved by conciliation with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $10,000 and provide her with a statement of service.

The complainant’s son has Generalised Anxiety Disorder and motor ticks and attended the respondent K-12 faith-based school. The complainant alleged the school failed to accommodate his son’s disability, including failing to provide an appropriate space for his son to self-regulate, not providing school chaplain support, not allowing him to return to class after a timeout session and disciplining him for behaviour associated with his disability. The complainant said he felt he had no choice but to remove his son from the school.

The school claimed the complainant’s son displayed problematic behaviour and was disciplined in accordance with relevant school policies and procedures. The school claimed it took reasonable steps to provide reasonable adjustments to accommodate the complainant’s son’s disability.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the school write to the complainant expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint and pay him $20,000. The school undertook to deliver training on neurodivergence to all staff and to offer its board professional development on supporting students who are neurodivergent.

The complainant worked in smoke testing and cleaning roles with the respondent construction company. He alleged the company made him redundant after he injured his knee at work, telling him he was a liability to the company. He said the company retracted the redundancy but he feared his ongoing employment was uncertain.

The company claimed that despite a lengthy workers’ compensation process, extended leave and provision of light duties, the complainant was deemed unfit to resume the inherent requirements of his role.

The complaint was resolved and the parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The company agreed to pay the complainant $10,000, provide him with a statement of service and separation certificate, and write to him expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint.

The complainant has a psychosocial disability and has an assistance animal. He alleged a nurse at the respondent medical practice refused to see him to take blood samples because he was accompanied by his assistance dog.

The medical practice denied discriminating against the complainant and indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved by conciliation with an agreement that the medical practice display signs stating assistance animals are welcome and deliver training to staff on assistance animal.