Conciliation Register

The complainant has a psychosocial disability and has an assistance dog. She alleged she could not make a booking with the respondent pet-friendly accommodation provider because her dog is not a small non-shedding animal.

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

The complaint was resolved by conciliation. The holiday accommodation provider undertook to update its website to reflect its obligations towards potential guests with assistance animals and apologised to the complainant for not accepting her booking.

The complainant has a disability that manifests as him walking with a limp. He alleged the respondent hotel denied him and friends entry because it incorrectly assumed he was intoxicated.

The hotel said that security have to ensure compliance with liquor licensing rules which require visual assessments of a person to determine if they are intoxicated. However, security are required to escalate to a manager if a person informs them that what could be interpreted as a sign of intoxication is actually a manifestation of a disability.

The complaint was resolved after the hotel apologised to the complainant for the incident and undertook to deliver refresher training on disability awareness to staff.

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.

The complainant has a neurological disability affecting her sleep and occasional caring responsibilities for a family member. She was placed at the respondent government agency by the respondent consulting firm. She claimed the agency originally offered to allow her to work from home as needed to accommodate her disability and to work interstate when required by her family responsibilities. She alleged these arrangements were removed without consultation and not replaced with any adjustments to accommodate her disability and family responsibilities. In addition, the complainant alleged that the agency monitored her work and breaks in an invasive manner and threatened to end her employment while she was on sick leave and that ultimately the respondents ended her employment.

The respondents denied discriminating against the complainant and claimed her contract was terminated due to performance concerns.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondents pay the complainant $15,000 as general damages and $5,000 in lieu of notice. The respondents also undertook to develop educational materials for managers and staff to facilitate respectful conversations about employees’ disability and need for adjustments.

The complainant advises she has Autism Spectrum Disorder and a sensory processing disorder and was a patient at the respondent medical centre. She claimed she felt overwhelmed by the sensory environment at the centre and requested that the music be turned off. She claimed her request was denied and she was required to explain her disability in front of other clients.

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

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the medical centre to make a quiet room available to the complainant when attending the medical centre in future, so long as it had sufficient notice for the room to be made available.

The complainant alleged the respondent withdrew an offer of employment following a medical assessment because the complainant has a psychosocial disability.

The respondent claimed it withdrew the offer of employment because of inconsistencies between the complainant’s employment history as set out in their application and as disclosed during the medical assessment. The respondent also noted it became aware of the complainant’s criminal record, which it considered relevant to the role.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondent pay the complainant $15,000.

The complainant alleged the respondent insurer denied her application for income protection insurance because she has a history of psychosocial disability. She claimed the insurer did not properly take into account the fact that she has managed her disability while working.

The insurer denied discriminating against the complainant but indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the insurer pay the complainant $1,900 in compensation.

The complainant was employed as a store person at the respondent automotive warehouse and developed osteoarthritis in her knee. She alleged that the warehouse failed to make reasonable adjustments for her while she waited for surgery, subjected her to additional and unnecessary medical assessments, and terminated her employment before the surgery took place.

The warehouse claimed that the additional medical assessments were necessary and reasonable in light of conflicting information about the complainant’s prognosis and her need for ongoing adjustments following the surgery. The warehouse said that providing the requested adjustments would have imposed an unjustifiable hardship, and that the complainant could not perform the inherent requirements of her role.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the warehouse pay the complainant $14,000 in compensation for economic loss.

The complainant has a mobility disability and holds a disability parking permit. She worked at a business in the respondent shopping centre. She said the staff car park was located too far for her and that customers with disability parking permits were able to access free parking close to the shopping centre in its customer car park. She alleged her request to access accessible parking free of cost at the customer car park was refused.

The shopping centre denied discriminating against the complainant and agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant be able to access free accessible parking at any of its shopping centres in her state. The shopping centre also paid the complainant approximately $2,250 as a refund for parking fees she had incurred.

The complainant’s son is five years of age and has Attention Deficit Disorder with aspects of Oppositional Defiance Disorder. She alleged her son’s primary school and its principal did not accommodate her son’s disability, singled him out in the classroom, excluded him from classroom activities, and suspended him because of behaviour associated with his disability.

The school denied discriminating against the complainant’s son but indicated a willingness to try to resolve the matter through conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the school’s principal to write to the complainant acknowledging the family’s experience, wishing her son all the best for the future, and affirming the school’s commitment to learn from the issues raised by the complainant.

The complainant alleged the respondent airline refused to carry his assistance animal because relevant documentation provided was not sufficient.

The airline acknowledged the complainant provided relevant documentation relating to the assistance animal’s training and role in alleviating the effects of his disability, but did not provide documentation showing the assistance animal met the standards of hygiene and behaviour that are appropriate for an animal in a public place.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the airline refund the complainant for the cost of the booking.