Conciliation Register

The complainant has Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and uses an assistance dog. She claimed that when her employer, the respondent state government corporation, transitioned to “hot-desking", she requested adjustments that included an anchor desk, regular contact with her manager, and to be accompanied by her assistance dog in the office. She alleged her requests were refused or not properly implemented and that she was told that PTSD is “easy to fix” so she should just “fix it”. The complainant said her health deteriorated as a result and she felt she had no option but to resign.

The state government corporation claimed it had properly accommodated the complainant’s disability when it transitioned to “hot-desking” arrangements.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the state government corporation pay the complainant $22,500 as general damages.

The complainant uses a wheelchair and alleged he was unable to book a flight with the respondent airline at his preferred time because assistance for passengers who use a wheelchair was unavailable.

The airline claimed that assistance for passengers who use a wheelchair was available for the flight the complainant wanted to book.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the airline pay the complainant $1,000 as compensation for the additional cost of booking the flight with a different airline.

The complainant uses a wheelchair and prebooked a taxi. He alleged the respondent taxi driver advised him they could not carry a wheelchair user. The complainant claimed that on contacting the respondent taxi company to book a wheelchair accessible taxi, his mother was told passengers requesting wheelchair accessible taxis were required to pay a $35 fee.

The taxi driver and the taxi company said there may have been some miscommunication on the day and indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the taxi company to develop disability awareness training for drivers in consultation with the complainant. The taxi driver agreed to participate in the training once developed and to pay the complainant $150.

The complainant has an assistance dog and alleged she was told by the respondent holiday accommodation provider that an additional fee would apply if she booked a stay with her assistance animal.

The holiday accommodation provider acknowledged that an additional fee applied to guests with pets.

The complaint was resolved after the holiday accommodation provider allowed the complainant to book at the standard rate on being provided with information to substantiate that the complainant’s dog is an assistance animal.

The complainant wears a badge identifying that they have a vision impairment. The complainant alleged that two staff from the respondent security company stopped him as he approached the checkout counter of the respondent grocery store for a bag check. The complainant alleged the security staff spoke to them in an aggressive and intimidating manner and did not identify themselves despite the complainant complying with the bag check.

The respondents denied discriminating against the complainant.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondents make a joint payment to the complainant of $1,500.

The complainant is blind and alleged the respondent bar refused her entry because she was accompanied by a guide dog.

The complaint was resolved when, in response to the complaint, the bar apologised to the complainant for her experience, delivered training to staff and managers on their obligations towards patrons with assistance animals and updated its operations manual.

The complainant aggravated a pre-existing back injury in the course of his employment with the respondent farm. He alleged the farm treated him less favourably because of his disability, including by telling him he was “no good for them anymore” and should look for another job, transferring him into less favourable onsite accommodation, requiring him to return a vehicle to which he had exclusive use, discouraging him from making a workers compensation claim, refusing to provide him with light duties in accordance with his certificates of capacity, and making him redundant.

The farm denied discriminating against the complainant.

The farm agreed to pay the complainant $20,000 as general damages.

The complainant was employed as a disability support worker with the respondent home care service provider. She said she took sick leave during the second and third trimesters of her pregnancy due to pregnancy-related medical complications. She alleged that when she sought to access parental leave, the service issued her with a separation certificate, stating the complainant had voluntarily ceased working for the service while on leave. The complainant said she never sought to resign.

The service claimed the complainant had voluntarily left her casual position for medical reasons and had provided a medical certificate stating she was unfit for duties.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the service pay the complainant $15,000 as general damages.

The complainant is blind. He alleged he fell and injured himself while boarding a bus operated by the respondent council because it stopped too far from the bus stop. He said that when he contacted council to request CCTV footage of the incident, the respondent staff member directed him to make his request using an online form, despite the complainant explaining this would be difficult for him because he is blind.

The council denied discriminating against the complainant.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the council pay the complainant $3,500.

The complainant has Attention-Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder and Persistent Depressive Disorder and works as a distance education teacher with the respondent government department. He alleged the department declined his request to work from home to accommodate his disability on the basis that he had not provided sufficient evidence to support his request.

On being notified of the complaint, the department indicated it would be open to allow the complainant to work from home to accommodate his disability, so long as the adjustments did not prevent the complainant from performing the inherent requirements of his role or cause unjustifiable hardship to the Department.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the department write to the complainant expressing its regret for the events giving rise to the complaint and pay him $7,500 as general damages. The department also agreed that its senior managers would undertake e-learning modules on managing staff with disability.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.