Conciliation Register

The complainant has Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and other cognitive impairments and resided in community housing operated by the respondent non-government organisation. He said he found it difficult to complete forms, write letters or understand lengthy written information because of his disability. He alleged staff of the organisation refused to provide him with assistance to lodge complaints about his property or to allow him to record conversations in order to have an accurate record of those conversations. He claimed his tenancy became untenable and he had no option but to end his tenancy arrangement, rendering him homeless. The complainant was unable to apply for alternative public or community housing because he was in debt to the organisation.

The community housing provider claimed that its staff provided assistance to the complainant to lodge complaints and raise concerns about his tenancy. The organisation said it had attempted to discourage the complainant from ending his tenancy but was unsuccessful.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the community housing provider waive the complainant’s debt of approximately $3,700 and refund his $1,400 bond. The organisation also undertook to ensure staff continue to provide assistance to tenants with disability who experience difficulties in completing forms or other documents related to their tenancy. Finally, the organisation agreed to remind staff of obligations to provide reasonable adjustments to clients with disability.

The complainant has autism and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and has an assistance dog. She alleged the respondent public hospital denied her access to certain departments of the hospital when she attended appointments with her assistance animal.

On being notified of the complaint, the hospital indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved. The complainant and her support person met with senior hospital staff to discuss the complainant’s need for an assistance animal and the provision of medical services to the complainant. As an outcome of this meeting, the hospital developed an agreed patient management plan.  

The complainant has a mobility disability and uses a wheelchair. She said she attended an event regarding possible seasonal work with the respondent retailer in response to an advertisement at a career day. The complainant alleged she was unable to attend the event or apply for a role because there were steps at the entrance to the room in which the event was being held.

The retailer confirmed the main entrance into the room where interviews were being held was not wheelchair accessible. The retailer claimed the complainant was offered the option of entering the room via a kitchen that was not in use. The retailer claimed the interview could have proceeded if the complainant had accepted this option.

The complaint was resolved. The retailer undertook to ensure all future such events are held in wheelchair accessible venues. The retailer also invited the complainant to make contact if she remained interested in seasonal or other work with the retailer.

The complainant is deaf and uses a hearing dog. She alleged that the respondent medical service denied or restricted her access to its premises when she was accompanied by her assistance animal.

The medical service advised the complainant had been a patient of the service for many years, but had never been accompanied by an assistance animal. The service said it required the complainant to leave her assistance animal at reception while she was undergoing an allergy test because she was unable to provide suitable evidence that her dog was an assistance animal. The service confirmed the complainant was not permitted to attend a follow-up appointment with her dog because there was a child in the waiting room with a severe allergy to dogs.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the medical service to accommodate patients with assistance animal in a manner which complied with relevant legislation and ensured the safety of all patients. The medical service agreed to develop a procedure outlining what should happen if a patient attends the service with an assistance animal and to provide staff with copies of relevant sections of federal and state legislation and guidelines.

The complainant has hyperthyroidism and has an assistance dog. She claimed that the respondent hair salon indicated that it would deny her access with her assistance dog, unless her assistance dog wore some kind of protection on its paws or used a floor underlay, due to the salon having recently renovated its floors. 

The hair salon claimed that it never denied the complainant access outright. It claimed its suggestions for paw protection and/or a floor underlay were attempts to accommodate the complainant and her assistance animal.

The complaint was resolved  with an agreement that the hair salon pay the complainant the ex gratia sum of $450.00.

The complainant has Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, depression and anxiety and was employed with the respondent local council. He said he experienced a panic attack at work arising from issues in his personal life. He alleged a manager disclosed information about his disability and attraction to a former supervisor without his permission. He also alleged the council did not permit him to return to his substantive role and required him to undergo numerous health assessments, despite him being deemed fit to return to work.

The council claimed it was not appropriate for the complainant to return to his substantive position for health and well-being reasons due to his attraction to his former supervisor and his mental health history.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the council pay the complainant approximately $95,000 and contribute to the cost of him accessing an employment services provider. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship.

The complainant has anxiety, depression and panic attacks and worked as a security guard at the premises of a government entity. He advised he was required to take time off work to attend appointments with his psychologist and to attend hospital to manage his disability. He alleged the government entity asked his employer, a private security company, to remove him from the site, ‘get rid’ of him and ‘fire’ him because he required a prolonged period of hospitalisation to undertake treatment for his disability.

The government entity claimed it was supportive of the complainant’s need to access leave to accommodate his disability, but needed to fill the role on an ongoing basis. The government agency said a person to fulfil the ongoing vacancy was sourced from another company because the complainant’s employer was unable to offer a suitably qualified candidate.

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

The complainant has post-stroke hemiplegia, aphasia and depression, and has an assistance animal. He booked a two-night stay with the respondent resort, which would cost approximately $350 and was informed shortly before he was due to check-in that a $150 fee would apply because he was accompanied by an assistance animal. The complainant said he asked to see a copy of the relevant policy but it was not provided to him. He also alleged the resort declined to waive the fee despite his advice that his dog was trained, licensed as an assistance animal and non-shedding.

On being notified of the complaint, the resort indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved. The resort apologised to the complainant for his experience, offered him a complimentary one-night stay and raised the complainant's experience with management, resulting in a review of policy and the publication of new guidelines regarding assistance animals.

The complainant has mild schizophrenia and applied for travel insurance with the respondent insurer. She alleged the insurer offered her a policy with an exclusion for schizophrenia, despite her disability being well managed and never requiring hospitalisation. The complainant applied for a review of the decision and provided the insurer with additional information. She alleged the insurer then offered her a policy with exclusions for schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, reflux and vitamin deficiency.

On being notified of the complaint, the insurer agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved. The insurer revised its underwriting risk rating criteria and as a result, offered the complainant a policy with no exclusions at no additional cost. The insurer also reviewed its assessment processes for applications requiring additional consideration due to the disclosure of complex medical conditions or disability.

The complainant’s 17-year-old daughter has auditory processing disorder, memory problems, learning difficulties and anxiety. The complainant’s daughter attended the respondent public high school but was often absent due to her disability. The complainant claimed the school gave her daughter poor marks in some subjects due to low attendance, but took no steps to ascertain the reason for the absences or to accommodate her disability. The complainant claimed that her daughter was therefore not eligible to complete her final year of school exams.

The school claimed it accommodated the complainant’s daughter’s disability in line with recommendations by her audiologist and psychologist. The school claimed it tried to meet with the complainant and her daughter to discuss the daughter’s non-attendance, but this did not occur.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the school review its policies regarding support for students with disability, deliver training to wellbeing officers regarding appropriate responses to identified mental health issues and refer the complainant’s daughter to a career advisor at a nearby high school. The school also agreed to write to the complainant acknowledging her dissatisfaction with the support her daughter received while at the school and pay her $3,000 towards psychological support for her daughter.

The complainant’s son is legally blind and attended the respondent public primary school. She alleged she had asked the school to install Tactile Ground Surface Indicators (TGSIs) at the top and bottom of stairs and other relevant points to enable her son to navigate the environment independently and safely. She alleged the school failed to do this. She also alleged her son was unable to participate in sporting activities because the school did not use balls with bells or other auditory signals.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the school take steps to improve accessibility to the school’s premises, to invite a blindness agency to deliver an information session at the school each year and to encourage teachers to discuss accommodation of students with disability with their students. The school also agreed to ensure that balls with bells would be used when ball sports were to be played and to potentially introduce goal ball as a sport. The school and the complainant agreed to liaise directly to discuss the inclusion of the complainant’s son in an upcoming school camp as well as ongoing support needs and progress. 

The complainant has osteogenesis imperfecta (also known as ‘brittle-bone disease’). She approached the respondent government department seeking clearance to teach at a public school after completing a teaching qualification. She alleged the department offered her limited permission to teach because of her disability. 

The department claimed it had an obligation to ensure potential staff were able to teach and supervise children in a safe manner and that it was appropriate to offer the complainant limited clearance to teach until the effects of her disability were better understood.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the department provide the complainant with full clearance to teach, amend her record accordingly and pay her $16,500.

The complainant had a knee injury which made it difficult for her to walk or climb stairs. She sought temporary accommodation with the respondent domestic violence support service and was offered an upstairs room. She claimed her request for ground floor accommodation in the communal living area to accommodate her disability was refused.

The domestic violence support service said it was not informed of the complainant’s disability through the intake process. The service said once it was made aware of her disability, it offered her suitable accommodation at another location.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the domestic violence support service to review its intake process and deliver disability awareness training to staff. The service also agreed to write to the complainant expressing regret for her negative experience.

The complainant’s sons have language difficulties and anxiety and his father-in-law, who resides with the family, has Parkinson’s disease and dementia. The complainant worked at the respondent bank was was undertaking a secondment in a senior consultant role. He alleged his team leader told him the bank did not want him to continue in the secondment because of his family responsibilities.

The bank claimed the complainant’s team leader met with him to discuss ongoing concerns about his stress levels. The bank claimed the complainant’s team leader was aiming to remove stress from the complainant’s work to enable him to focus on his family situation. The bank said its intention was to support the complainant and not to discriminate against him.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement to end the employment relationship. The bank agreed to pay the complainant $45,000 less applicable tax and inclusive of all statutory entitlements. The bank also agreed to provide the complainant with a statement of service and a contact point for prospective employers. 

The complainant has a vision impairment and was employed by the respondent community organisation. She alleged the organisation did not provide adjustments to accommodate her disability, including a larger computer screen. She also alleged she was required to access the organisation’s server via her mobile phone or library computers for several months. She claimed the requirement to access the organisation’s server without access to a larger monitor had a negative impact on her health and she felt she had no option but to resign.

The community organisation claimed the complainant did not request adjustments prior to her engagement or in writing after her engagement. The organisation claimed if made certain adjustments to accommodate the complainant’s disability and acknowledged there had been supplier delays in the delivery of computer equipment requested to accommodate the complainant’s disability.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the community organisation pay the complainant $10,000 as compensation for pain and suffering and write to her acknowledging the difficulties she experienced due to supplier delays in the delivery of certain computer equipment. The organisation also undertook to revise its policies regarding requests for workplace adjustments to ensure oral requests for adjustment were appropriately considered and acted on. Additionally, the organisation agreed to deliver disability awareness training to management staff.