Conciliation Register

The complainant has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Tourette's syndrome, learning and developmental disability and generalised anxiety disorder.  He claimed that, on his first day of employment as a truck driver with the respondent company, he told his manager about his disability and need for assistance with writing, computer work and learning new tasks. He alleged the company did not make reasonable adjustments with respect to written and computer work. He also alleged a colleague bullied him, including by saying words to the effect ‘dumb f**k, I’m going to get you fired!’ and falsely accusing him of assault. The complainant said the company terminated his employment before the end of his probationary period.

The company claimed it terminated the complainant’s employment due to poor performance and not because of his disability.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $2,000 ex-gratia, provide him with a statement of service and offer a contact person as referee for future job applications. 

The complainant has anxiety and was a student with the respondent university. She advised the faculty granted her an extension to submit an assignment which she sought to accommodate her disability. The complainant alleged that she was subsequently sent a discriminatory email by the subject coordinator. The complainant alleged she was awarded a fail grade for the subject after alleging the subject coordinator’s email was discriminatory. She alleged the subject coordinator’s comments made her feel uncomfortable about seeking exemptions in the future.

The university conceded that the email was not sensitive or courteous, but denied that it was discriminatory. The university advised that the complainant’s grade was awarded before the internal complaint was made and by someone unaware of the circumstances giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint was resolved. The university agreed to work with the complainant to develop a plan setting out her disability-related need for adjustments, pending provision of relevant information about her disability. The university also agreed to change the complainant’s fail grades to withdrawals without academic or financial penalty and to pay the complainant $5,000 as general damages.

 

The complainant’s 10-year-old daughter has severe epilepsy, autism and an intellectual disability and has an assistance animal. The complainant booked a camping holiday for the family with the respondent accommodation provider. She alleged that when she tried to change her booking to book an apartment, she was told there was a ‘no pets’ policy, even if the animal was an assistance animal.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the accommodation provider write to the complainant apologising for the incident and offer the family two weeks’ free accommodation. The accommodation provider undertook to state its commitment to offering access to guests with assistance animals on its social media page. Finally, the accommodation provider agreed to offer a staff member of an organisation responsible for the training of assistance animals two nights’ free accommodation and compensation for travel costs to facilitate an inspection of its expanding services to guests with assistance animals.

 

The complainant’s two young children use wheelchairs for mobility. She alleged customers using the respondent ticket booking service to book wheelchair accessible seating could not do so online, and must instead use a telephone booking service which was difficult to reach. 

The booking service acknowledged that the process for booking accessible seating is lengthier than the online process for booking standard seating. The service argued that through its phone booking system, trained operators could gain a better understanding of the particular needs of customers in order to match them with suitable accessible requirements of the particular venue, which varied in configuration and price point. The service advised that a number of tickets for each event were reserved for those using the telephone booking service, ensuring they were not disadvantaged in relation to those booking online.  The service noted that operators of its phone booking service also took steps to avoid fraudulent ticket purchases to ensure customers with legitimate access requirements were not deprived of tickets. The service argued it was not feasible to develop a system for online booking of accessible tickets, as there was no single technological solution that could adequately cater for the varying requirements of customers and venues and other complexities of booking accessible seating. 

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the booking service to commence a two-year process to deliver equal access to online booking of tickets for customers with access needs. The service agreed to keep the complainant informed of progress and to continue to advocate for the provision of accessible seating and facilities by Australian entertainment venues.

The complainant is blind, has anxiety and has an assistance dog. She alleged she was originally not allowed to board a cruise with her assistance animal. She said she was ultimately allowed to board, but told she would not be permitted to board with an assistance animal in the future.

On being notified of the complaint, the cruise company indicated a willingness to participate in a conciliation process.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking that the complainant’s record reflect she travels with an assistance animal to ensure similar issues do not arise in future trips.

The complainants’ daughter has a form of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder associated with spending her early years in an overseas orphanage. They alleged that the respondent private K-12 school failed to appropriately accommodate their daughter’s disability and that teachers unduly criticised and penalised their daughter because of behaviour associated with her disability. The complainants withdrew their daughter from the school before lodging a complaint with this Commission.

The school claimed it and its staff took all reasonable steps to accommodate the complainants’ daughter and noted that the complainants only provided the school with their daughter’s formal diagnosis a few months before withdrawing her from the school.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the school pay the complainants approximately $17,600 as a refund to fees for two terms, a contribution towards the costs of relocating their daughter to a different school and as a contribution to potential future costs associated with managing her disability.

The complainant has depression, impaired mobility, is often bed-ridden and has an assistance animal. The complainant was a public housing tenant and claimed he was not permitted to install a fitted animal door on his property to allow his dog to move indoors and outdoors independently without the complainant having to get up to let the dog in or out.

On being advised of the complaint, the relevant government department indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try and resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the department install a fitted animal door on the complainant’s property at no cost to him. The department also provided the complainant with a contact point should any issues arise in the future.

The complainant has muscular dystrophy and has difficulty walking. He alleged he was unable to access the respondent supermarket outlet because there was a high step at the front entrance and the accessible entrance was locked.

The supermarket advised that, in response to the complaint, it would keep the accessible entrance open during business hours.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the supermarket pay the complainant $5,000.

 

The complainant has a limited ability to lift weight and move his arms due to undergoing a quadruple bypass to manage a heart condition. He erected a temporary pergola in his backyard, as he was unable to operate a different type of shade structure because of his disability. He alleged the respondent owners corporation failed to approve his application for the pergola as a reasonable adjustment and directed him to remove it. The complainant also alleged the respondent strata management company was responsible for the discrimination.

The respondents claimed the complainant erected the pergola without first seeking permission to do so. They also claimed that, when he did seek permission, he failed to advise the respondents of his disability and need for that particular shade structure to accommodate his disability.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the owner's corporation grant permission for the complainant to keep the pergola subject to a review of the complainant's ongoing need for the pergola on medical grounds in six months’ time.

 

The complainant has an assistance animal to alleviate the effects of a number of disabilities, including social anxiety, Attention-Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The complainant alleged staff at the respondent grocery store told her she was not allowed in with her dog, despite her explaining it was an assistance animal. The complainant said she was ultimately served, but felt very upset.

The store owner explained he had been unaware of his obligations under federal discrimination law and served the complainant once she explained her dog was an assistance animal and should be allowed in the store.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the store owner place an ‘Assistance Dogs Welcome’ sign in his store and write to the complainant expressing regret for the incident.

The complainant has a number of medical conditions, including osteoarthritis, kidney stones, diabetes and depression. She alleged that during her employment with the respondent plant nursery, negative statements were made about her disability, including that her disability impacted negatively on her performance. The complainant claimed the nursery required her to undergo a fitness for duty process and ultimately terminated her employment.

The nursery claimed the complainant’s employment was terminated due to poor performance and not because of her disability.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the nursery pay the complainant $10,000, provide her with a statement of service and characterise the end of the employment as a resignation. The nursery also agreed to write to the complainant expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint.

 

The complainant is HIV+ and attended the respondent driving school in order to obtain a truck-driving licence. She said that she disclosed that she takes medication to manage her disability to the driving instructor while the two were driving as part of a one-to-one lesson. She alleged the instructor told her she had put the lives of everyone who had been in the truck at risk, directed her to stop the truck and get into the passenger’s seat and drove back to the driving school. The complainant alleged that when she wrote down the name of her medication on a piece of paper at the instructor’s request, he picked it up by the corner with the tips of his fingers. The complainant claimed she felt the instructor was afraid of, and disgusted, by her. The complainant said she raised concerns about what happened with the driving school but was not satisfied with the response. She said she was unable to finish her driving course or obtain her licence.

The driving school said that the government authority that accredits the driving course requires students to disclose on enrolment if they are taking any medication. If a student is taking any medication, the student must be cleared by the authority before being able to undertake the driving course. The driving school said the complainant had failed to disclose that she was on medication. The driving school said that, on finding out that the complainant was on medication, the instructor had no option but to stop the truck and drive her back to base. The driving school said the instructor denied behaving in a manner that conveyed fear or disgust towards the complainant.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the driving school refund the complainant $1,350 for the cost of the course, deliver training to all staff on the needs of students with disability and draft guidelines for instructors on how best to respond to disclosures by students that they are on medication.

The complainant is Deaf and claimed that on several occasions his bank tried to communicate with him by telephone regarding his accounts. He claimed this required him to attend a branch in person to conduct his banking or to enlist the assistance of another person to communicate with the bank by telephone, meaning he needed to disclose his personal banking security information to that person. He considered the bank should offer the option of communication by text message.

On being advised of the complaint the bank agreed to participate in a conciliation process.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the bank pay the complainant $500 and offer him personalised banking services, including a point of contact with whom he can communicate via text message.

The complainant has an intellectual disability and is non-verbal. The complainant’s advocate alleged that the respondent organisation delivering support to persons with disability required the complainant to sign a service agreement before delivering one-to-one support as set out in her NDIS plan. As the complainant did not have capacity to sign the agreement because of her disability, she was unable to receive the service.

On being advised of the complaint, the organisation agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the organisation deliver support to the complainant without the need for her to sign a service agreement on the basis that discussions about the complainant’s needs would be held between the complainant’s support coordinator, advocate and the organisation.

 

The complainant has an assistance animal that assists in managing an anxiety disorder. She alleged a staff member at the respondent café, where she was breakfasting with her family,  told her she had to take her dog outside, despite the dog wearing a harness identifying it as an assistance animal. The complainant alleged the staff member’s aggressive manner led other patrons to become aggressive towards her and her experiencing a panic attack.

The café claimed the complainant’s dog was not wearing a jacket, was on an extendable lead and was roaming around the café, jumping up and sniffing other patrons and their food. The café claimed the staff member asked the complainant to demonstrate the dog was an assistance animal and under her control. The café denied the staff member was aggressive towards the complainant.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that a photo of the complainant and her dog be placed in the café’s staff room so that staff are familiar with them. The café’s owner undertook to hold a staff meeting to discuss the incident giving rise to the complaint and to provide the complainant with his phone number should she experience any problems in the future.