Conciliation Register

The complainant has an intellectual disability and holds a companion card, which entitles him to free tickets for certain events for his companion. He sought to book tickets for himself and his companion for an event on the respondent company's website. He said he was unable to make the booking online and there was no information available about alternative booking methods. The complainant ultimately purchased two full-price tickets online.

The company said those seeking to book tickets for companions should do so by phone or email as this ensures customers’ specific needs are met. The company acknowledgeed information about the correct booking process may not have been clearly displayed on its website.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company:

set up a phone line dedicated to customers with specific needs;

provide clear information for people with specific booking needs on its website;

pay the complainant approximately $280 in compensation for the difference in ticket cost;

and set up a working group to investigate the possibility of booking companion tickets online.

The complainant has a mobility disability and claimed she was unable to use the accessible toilet facilities at a bus terminal because they were locked. She said businesses at and near the bus terminal told her they did not have a key to the accessible toilet facilities.

The company that operated the bus terminal advised a key to the accessible toilet facilities should have been available from the bus company desks located at the terminal.

The complaint was resolved after the company reminded bus companies located at the terminal that they should hold a key to the accessible toilet facilities and provide it on request. The company also placed signage on the toilet door advising how the key could be obtained.

The complainant has anxiety and depression and had a major episode a couple of years previously while employed as an electrician with the respondent company. He claimed that on returning to work colleagues treated him less favourably because of his disability including by calling him names. The complainant claimed the company was aware of the alleged treatment but took no action. He also claimed the company began offering him less work and ultimately terminated his employment. He also alleged the company victimised him after he made a complaint about the alleged treatment.

The company denied any knowledge of the complainant's disability or that colleagues were calling him names. The company said there was no record of the complainant making an internal complaint and claimed that any allegations would have been investigated in accordance with relevant procedures. The company said the complainant was dismissed because of unsatisfactory performance, dishonesty in the investigation process and a breach of company procedure.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company provide the complainant with a statement of service and a number of counselling sessions through its Employee Assistance Provider.

The complainant had been employed with the respondent government agency for about 10 years. He took time off work to seek treatment for depression. The complainant claimed the agency identified his position for redundancy because there were concerns he would not return to ‘full health’.

The agency claimed the complainant’s position was made redundant for legitimate operational reasons and his disability was not a factor in the decision.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the agency pay the complainant $97,500 as an eligible termination payment and provide him with a reference.

The complainant’s adult son has an intellectual disability. She claimed that the respondent law enforcement agency failed to provide her son with an advocate when arresting him and he was therefore unable to understand what was happening.

The law enforcement agency confirmed the complainant’s son was not provided with an advocate, but denied that this was discriminatory.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the law enforcement agency add information to the complainant’s son’s file to the effect that he should be provided with an advocate to ensure he understands relevant information and procedures.

The complainant worked at the respondent car dealership and was the only female employee in her team. She claimed that, because of her sex, the dealership excluded her from participating in a team competition and dealt harshly with her in relation to an internal complaint she made. She also alleged colleagues sexually harassed her including by asking her about her sex life, making gestures of a sexual nature and commenting on her daughter's breasts when she visited the complainant at work. The complainant has a medical condition which causes hair loss and she wears a wig. She claimed a colleague continuously questioned her about her wearing a wig despite knowing the reason why.

The dealership denied the allegations of sex and disability discrimination and claimed that, while conduct of a sexual nature occurred at the dealership, the complainant was an active participant and instigator in the conduct.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the dealership pay the complainant $7,500 as general damages and provide her with a statement of service. At the time agreement was reached, the complainant had been assessed as unfit for work due to psychological injury caused by workplace events. She indicated she did not intend to return to her employment at the dealership.

One of the complainants is a transgender woman who was diagnosed with gender dysphoria and received hormone treatment. She and her female partner claimed the respondent fertility clinic  told them it would be unlikely to apply for any Medicare rebate for fertility treatment because it did not consider the couple would be eligible due to a 'choice' to be infertile as a result of hormone treatment.

The clinic said its intention had been to clarify upfront the costs that the complainants may face in light of the Medicare regime. The clinic noted Medicare provided rebates for 'clinically relevant services' and so it was unclear whether same-sex couples would be eligible for Medicare rebates. The clinic claimed the complainants were invited to obtain a written assurance from Medicare that a claim would be processed.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the clinic write to the complainants apologising for the incident and deliver training to staff on gender identity and disability discrimination.

The complainant has depression and an eating disorder and worked as an administrative assistant at the respondent aged care facility. She claimed the human resources manager often asked her if she had eaten, offered her food scraps, and said in front of colleagues that ‘you don't need lunch’ and ‘you're looking too skinny’. She claimed the same manager also sexually harassed her, including by making comments about ejaculating in her coffee, showing her a film of naked women dancing and talking about his sexual relationships in front of her. The aged care facility did not renew the complainant’s employment contract.

The respondents denied the allegations and claimed they were unaware of the complainant’s disability.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the aged care facility pay the complainant $20,000 as general damages, provide her with a detailed statement of service and conduct training for staff regarding its complaint and grievance procedures.

The complainant injured her back in the course of her work as a fulltime sales executive with the respondent furniture company. She claimed the company failed to follow medical recommendations for a modified desk and restricted warehouse duties. The complainant said about a month later the company terminated her employment citing a breach of contract, which she disputed.

The company claimed the complainant’s desk was modified in accordance with medical recommendations and she was not required to work in the warehouse. The company said the complainant’s employment was terminated because she breached the company’s policy in relation to soliciting customers of other franchisees, despite having already received a warning about the issue.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $6,000 as general damages.

The complainant has a physical disability and uses a wheelchair. She claimed she was unable to access certain places of worship in order to practice her faith and attend religious services, meetings and talks because of the lack of wheelchair access.

On being advised of the complaint the respondent religious body indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the religious body develop and implement a Disability Action Plan.

The complainant has a physical disability, uses a walker and is unable to climb up and down stairs. She visited the respondent clinic for a blood test but was unable to access the building because there are steps leading to the entrance and no ramp access. She claimed the clinic did not provide her with assistance to enter the building or offer an alternative way to conduct the blood test.

The clinic advised that it owns the building and confirmed there is no ramp access. The clinic said an application had been made to council to install a ramp but given the building is heritage listed, the conditions Council placed on approval would have imposed an unjustifiable hardship on the business. The clinic advised services can be delivered to registered patients unable to access the clinic in their homes but the complainant was seeking a service from another provider located in the same building.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the clinic seek advice from a town planner about the feasibility of building a ramp in accordance with Council guidelines and install a ramp subject to Council approval and financial considerations.

The complainant’s son has major depression and generalised anxiety disorder, which can manifest as self-harming behaviour and suicidal tendencies. The complainant’s son was a year 11 student at the respondent private school, which was aware of his disability and provided adjustments, including accommodating low attendance and allowing him to complete work outside the counsellor’s office. The complainant claimed that ten days before a scheduled school overseas trip, the respondent principal withdrew permission for the complainant’s son to undertake the trip because of his low school attendance. The complainant also claimed the school had recently failed to properly accommodate her son’s disability and the school counsellor had made adverse comments about her son’s disability.

On being advised of the complaint the school and its principal agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the school pay the complainant $4,000 as general damages and the principal write to the complainant’s son expressing regret for any distress he experienced as a result of the events giving rise to the complaint.

The complainant has a medical condition causing inflamatory back pain and had previously been diagnosed with anxiety and depression. He was employed as a disability support worker with the respondent community organisation on a fulltime permanent basis. The complainant claimed the organisation sent him a warning letter regarding excessive absences from work shortly after he started an approved period of leave without pay to manage his psychosocial disability. He claimed the organisation terminated his employment after he refused an offer to work on a casual basis.

The organisation claimed the complainant had a history of unplanned absences from the workplace over at least a 12 month period and this was having a significant and unsustainable impact on the service’s operations. The organisation claimed it attempted to accommodate the complainant’s disability by offering him an opportunity to work on a casual basis but the complainant refused this offer.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the organisation pay the complainant $2,500 as general damages.

The complainant is 68 years of age and was employed as a helicopter pilot with the respondent government agency. He claimed he was asked about his retirement plans, told that he was 'getting past his used by date' and told he should think about moving on. He also claimed the agency prevented him from flying because of alleged concerns about the impact of a vision impairment on his ability to pilot a helicopter safely.

The agency claimed concerns were held about the complainant's ability to safely perform his role and denied that the complainant’s age or disability were factors in decisions regarding his employment.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the agency pay the complainant $50,000 nett. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship.

The complainant was employed with the respondent college. He claimed that on the basis of a suspected disability he was directed to stand down from his job, required to attend an independent medical assessment and his special leave payments were discontinued.



On being advised of the complaint the college indicated a willingness to try to resolve the matter through conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant would accept a voluntary redundancy. The college agreed to pay the complainant $10,000 in compensation for legal costs and also provide him with $5,000 worth of outplacement assistance. The college also agreed that publication of the redundancy in the college's newsletter would include a positive statement about the complainant's employment.