Conciliation Register

The complainant is blind and has a guide dog. He claimed he was unable to safely cross a street near his home because although there was a pedestrian safety zone, there was no way for him to detect the location of the zone. He said he had asked his local council on several occasions to address the issue with no result.

The local council advised it was aware of the complainant's concerns but was not in a position to agree to individual requests for the installation of tactile ground surface indicators.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the local council would upgrade the crossing near the complainant's home and include resurfacing to ensure it is accessible to people who are blind.

The complainant’s son is on the Autism spectrum, has Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder, Generalised Anxiety Disorder and a pathological demand avoidance profile. She claimed the respondent public school failed to appropriately accommodate her son’s disability, resulting in school refusal.

On being informed of the complaint, the school denied discriminating against the complainant’s son and indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the department responsible for the operation of the school pay the complainant $30,000 as general damages and write to her family apologising for their experience. The complainant was offered the opportunity to share her son’s story and experience with the department and participate in a review of access and inclusion for students with disability.

The complainant has a vision impairment and tried to obtain a quote for car insurance from the respondent insurer’s website, but found the website inaccessible. He claimed that when he contacted the insurer, he was informed it did not offer products for people with a vision impairment.

The insurer advised that in response to the complainant’s original complaint to the insurer, it had made some changes to its website and processes to enable potential customers with a vision impairment to more easily obtain a quote for car insurance.

The complainant considered that the steps taken by the insurer to address the concerns he raised resolved his complaint.

The complainant has a neurological condition and uses a wheelchair. She says that prior to booking a stay at the respondent hotel, she was informed the hotel was wheelchair accessible. She alleges when she arrived, she found not all facilities were wheelchair accessible, for example, furniture layout made parts of the room inaccessible, there was a step to access the balcony and the gym and pool facilities were accessed via steps.

The hotel said it understood the complainant to be inquiring about the accessibility of the in-room shower facilities. The hotel claimed offering wheelchair access to all its facilities would impose an unjustifiable hardship on it.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the hotel pay the complainant $100, deliver disability awareness training to all staff and update information on booking platforms about the accessibility of hotel rooms and facilities

The complainant has a spinal injury and uses a mobility scooter. He claimed he was unable to leave his home due to the lack of pavement outside his house, given he was told it was illegal to use his scooter on the road. 

On being notified of the complaint, the local council indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the local council modify the pavement on the complainant’s driveway and on the opposite side of the road to enable the complainant to safely access the footpath on the opposite side of the road with his scooter.

The complainant has Autism Spectrum Disorder and says he can feel overwhelmed when given a lot of information. He said he became overwhelmed on his first day of work with the respondent organisation and took the second day as personal leave. He claimed on the third day, he was told he was not the right fit for the organisation and his employment was terminated.

The organisation denied the allegations and said it was not aware of the complainant’s disability. The organisation claimed the complainant’s behaviour was inconsistent with its code of conduct and unrelated to his disability.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the organisation pay the complainant approximately $2,320 as a gesture of goodwill.

The complainant finds it difficult to stand for extended periods of time without short periods of rest due to a number of medical conditions. On commencing employment with the respondent clothing retailer, she requested some adjustments to accommodate her disability, including a kneeling stool and/or cushioned mat. She alleged the retailer denied her request, cancelled her induction training and rostered shifts and terminated her employment.

On being notified of the complaint, the retailer indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try and resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant be reinstated and offered adjustments to accommodate her disability, such as additional breaks and use of an anti-fatigue mat.

The complainant alleged the respondent taxi driver at a taxi rank refused to take his fare because he was accompanied by an assistance animal. 

The taxi driver said he did not take the complainant’s fare because it would mean he would be late for a pre-arranged booking.

The complaint was resolved through conciliation. The taxi driver had undergone training on discrimination and customer service and expressed regret for declining the complainant’s fare. The taxi driver agreed to make a $250 donation in the complainant’s name to a charity that assists people with assistance animals and provides training and awareness raising to the public. The taxi company agreed to consult the charity on suitable training materials for its drivers to increase awareness of appropriate conduct towards passengers with disability accompanied by assistance animals.

The complainant uses a wheelchair. She alleged she had difficulty accessing the respondent retail outlet because aisles were obstructed by boxes, displays and decorations. She claimed when she raised the issue with the store manager she was treated in a disrespectful manner.

The retailer advised the complainant’s experience was an isolated incident and inconsistent with its policies. The retailer apologised to the complainant for her experience and indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved by conciliation with an undertaking that the retailer provide training to staff on appropriate stocking procedures and the need to maintain wheelchair accessible pathways in retail outlets. The retailer also undertook to remind staff of the need to respond to customer concerns in a professional manner and deliver training on the needs of customers with disability. Further, the retailer also undertook to deliver additional regular training and carry out regular audits to ensure its outlets comply with relevant accessibility policies and requirements. The manager referred to in the complaint was no longer employed by the retailer.

The complainant’s son has a rare chromosomal disorder and is non-ambulatory and non-verbal. She alleged the respondent private school declined her son’s application for enrolment on the basis that it considered his disability could not be accommodated in a mainstream environment.

The school denied any discrimination and indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the school pay the complainant $5,000 as general damages. The school apologised to the complainant for her experience and agreed to convey the complainant’s concerns about the nature of communications between the school and parents seeking to enrol children with disability as a senior leadership meeting.

The complainant alleged the respondent real estate agent denied her access to a property because she was accompanied by an assistance dog.

The real estate company apologised to the complainant for her experience and expressed a desire to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved by conciliation. The real estate agent was counselled and attended anti-discrimination training. The company delivered training to its staff on their obligations towards people with disability and assistance animals, incorporating information and resources provided by the Commission.

The complainant alleged the respondent local council failed to provide accessible parking at three local beaches.

The council advised it had recently introduced accessible parking at two of the beaches. The council advised accessible parking would be provided at the third beach as part of planned upgrades to parking facilities.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the council install bollards at the two beaches to ensure the accessible parking was accessible in line with Australian Standards.

The complainant was recovering from back surgery and used a walking frame. She attended the respondent hotel and said there was no accessible bathroom. The complainant said the cubicle was too narrow and so she had to leave her walking frame outside the cubicle. She claimed that, due to the lack of handrails in the cubicle, she was then unable to stand and became trapped in the cubicle. The complainant said her partner was able to assist her with the cubicle door open. The complainant alleged that when she raised the issue with a staff member she felt the staff member was dismissive of her experience. The complainant said she felt distressed and embarrassed by the incident.

The hotel owner advised the hotel is very old and the building is heritage listed, having undergone its last major refurbishment several decades ago. The hotel advised that it undergoes regular building inspections and the accessibility of toilet facilities has never been raised.

The complaint was resolved by conciliation. The hotel apologised to the complainant for her experience. The hotel undertook to install rails in at least one of the bathroom stalls for men and women and to explore the option of installing an accessible toilet should the hotel be refurbished in the future. The hotel also undertook to continue to talk to its staff about their responsibilities towards patrons with disability.

The complainant has a mobility disability and sought to park his car in an accessible parking spot at the respondent hotel’s car park. He claimed there was no accessible parking or courtesy parking for people with disability.

The hotel advised it did offer courtesy parking for people with disability but acknowledged the layout of the car park was confusing and that patrons may not easily identify accessible parking spots. The hotel undertook to update parking information on its website and to train frontline staff to assist patrons with disability requiring accessible parking.

The complainant considered the actions taken by the hotel resolved the complaint.

The complainant’s daughter has Autism Spectrum Disorder and communication difficulties. The complainant alleged the respondent private school declined her daughter’s application for enrolment and would not provide adjustments to accommodate her daughter’s disability.

The school claimed it requested additional information about the complainant’s daughter’s disability, which was not provided. The school said it made the complainant’s daughter an offer of enrolment but this was not accepted before the offer expired.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the school write to the complainant expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint, pay her $15,000 and update its policies on the enrolment and support of students with disability.