Skip to main content

Conciliation Register

Act Sex Discrimination Act
Grounds Gender identity
Areas Goods, services and facilities
Outcome details

Policy change/Change in practice

Year

The complainant and their partner identify as non-binary. They alleged that when making a booking with the respondent airline, they were required to use binary gender and honorific options.

The respondent airline acknowledged the complainant's experience and limitations of the online booking system for non-binary passengers. The airline explained that it was difficult to update its booking system as it was connected to other business systems, not all of which may be associated with the airline. Following a review of its systems, the airline outlined the stages and timeline the improving the airline’s systems to provide non-binary/gender neutral options across all of its systems and processes. The airline updated its online booking system so that passengers will have the ability to select “undisclosed” as a gender option and “MX” as an honorific. 

The complainant considered the complaint resolved based on the actions taken by the airline in response to the complaint.

Act Sex Discrimination Act
Grounds Sex
Sexual harassment
Victimisation
Areas Employment
Outcome details

Compensation

Amount $45,000
Year

The complainant was employed as a marketing manager with the respondent real estate agency. She alleged the owner and two sales agents sexually harassed her, including by making comments of a sexual nature towards her and about other women in her presence. The complainant said she felt she had no option but to resign. She alleges that when she told the office manager she was resigning because she was sexually harassed, the office manager told her that if she made a formal external complaint, she would not be “hireable”. The complainant gained employment with a different respondent real estate agency and alleged she was made redundant once she disclosed her allegations of sexual harassment in her previous workplace.

 

On being informed of the complaint, the respondents denied the allegations but agreed to participate in conciliation.

 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondents jointly pay the complainant $45,000 as general damages and provide an outline of training delivered to their staff on sexual harassment.

Act Sex Discrimination Act
Grounds Sexual harassment
Areas Employment
Outcome details

Compensation

Amount $110,000
Year

The complainant was employed as a personal assistant to the managing director of a small business. She alleged that the managing director sexually harassed her, including by making comments about the possibility of them living together, asking her about her sex life and ultimately writing to her proposing that they enter into a romantic relationship.

 

The respondents denied the alleged conduct was sexual harassment. The managing director said the comments were consensual and made in the context of a close friendship. He said this led him to propose a romantic relationship. While his proposal was declined, he said this did not amount to sexual harassment.

 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondents pay the complainant $100,000 as general damages and $10,000 as a contribution to her legal costs. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship.

Act Sex Discrimination Act
Grounds Family responsibilities
Areas Employment
Outcome details

Compensation

Amount $3,000
Year

The complainant worked as a registered nurse with the respondent home-based nursing service. She said she was issued with a warning after missing four shifts due to increased caring responsibilities for her children associated with domestic violence related court processes. The complainant said she resigned but asked to retain one shift per fortnight to assist a particular client of the service. She alleged her request was denied despite other nurses having similar arrangements.

 

The service denied the allegations but agreed to participate in conciliation.

 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the service pay the complainant $3,000.

 

Act Sex Discrimination Act
Grounds Gender identity
Areas Goods, services and facilities
Outcome details

Policy change/Change in practice

Year

The complainant is non-binary and alleged the respondent airline’s booking system required the use of binary gender information.

 

The airline said aspects of the business, such as feedback forms and announcements, had been updated to be more gender inclusive, but changes to the booking system would be technical and complex and impact on other internal systems.

 

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the airline that non-binary/gender neutral options would be available across all its systems and processes. The airline said that the booking system would allow customers to select “undisclosed” when asked about gender and to use “Mx” as a prefix.

Act Disability Discrimination Act
Sex Discrimination Act
Grounds Disability
Family responsibilities
Pregnancy
Areas Employment
Outcome details

Compensation

Amount $15,000
Year

The complainant was employed as a disability support worker with the respondent home care service provider. She said she took sick leave during the second and third trimesters of her pregnancy due to pregnancy-related medical complications. She alleged that when she sought to access parental leave, the service issued her with a separation certificate, stating the complainant had voluntarily ceased working for the service while on leave. The complainant said she never sought to resign.

 

The service claimed the complainant had voluntarily left her casual position for medical reasons and had provided a medical certificate stating she was unfit for duties.

 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the service pay the complainant $15,000 as general damages.

 

Act Sex Discrimination Act
Grounds Family responsibilities
Sex
Areas Employment
Outcome details

Compensation

Amount $6,000
Year

The complainant alleged that the respondent not-for-profit organisation denied her request to work from home during school holidays to enable her to care for her three children. She alleged she was told she would not be able to meet the requirements of her role while looking after her children.

The organisation claimed the complainant’s role required her to be present in the office.

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The organisation agreed to pay the complainant $6,000 as general damages.

 

Act Sex Discrimination Act
Grounds Pregnancy
Areas Employment
Outcome details

Compensation

Amount $10,000
Year

The complainant alleged a verbal offer of employment in a senior human resources role with the respondent company was withdrawn once she disclosed she was pregnant.

 

The company denied making an offer of employment to the complainant.

 

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

 

Act Disability Discrimination Act
Sex Discrimination Act
Grounds Disability
Family responsibilities
Victimisation
Areas Employment
Outcome details
  • Compensation
  • Employment - other
  • Policy change/Change in practice (internal staff) 
Amount $20,000
Year

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.

Act Sex Discrimination Act
Grounds sex-based harassment
Sexual harassment
Victimisation
Areas Employment
Outcome details

Compensation

Amount $25,000
Year

The complainant alleged a colleague at the café where she worked sexually harassed her, including by asking her about her sex life, making comments of sexual nature about female customers, touching her breasts and lower back while passing by and exhibiting his arm and abdominal muscles. She claimed she complained about the alleged conduct and helped a colleague complaint about similar conduct. The complainant alleged that following her complaints, her hours were reduced and she was eventually sent an exit survey, despite remaining an employee.

 

The café denied the allegations of sexual harassment but agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

 

The complaint was resolved by conciliation with an agreement that the café pay the complainant $25,000.

 

Act Sex Discrimination Act
Grounds Sex
Sexual harassment
Areas Education
Employment
Outcome details

Compensation

Amount $60,000
Year

The complainant was a student at the respondent university and worked as a life guard at an aquatic centre operated by the university. She alleged a colleague sexually harassed her, including by touching parts of her body, kissing her cheeks, slapping her on the bottom and telling her she was “hot” and “pretty”. She said she made a complaint to the university about the alleged conduct and that, following an investigation, the university took steps to separate them in the workplace. The complainant alleges that due to a scheduling error, she was rostered to work with her colleague and felt unsafe to return to work after that time.

 

The university denied that the alleged conduct constituted sexual harassment. The university claimed it was not vicariously liable for any sexual harassment in the workplace, as it took all reasonable steps to prevent such conduct and responded appropriately to reports of its occurrence.

 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the university pay the complainant $60,000 as general damages.

Act Sex Discrimination Act
Grounds Sexual harassment
Areas Employment
Outcome details

Compensation

Amount $68,000
Year

The complainant worked as a security supervisor with the respondent hotel. She alleged that from the commencement of her employment, the security director sexually harassed her, including by making comments and sending her messages indicating he had feelings for her, showing up at her home unannounced, and buying her flowers. The complainant said she shared an office with the security director and claimed that he regularly asked her to kiss and hug him and on several occasions attempted to kiss and touch her. She alleged that when she rejected his advances and asked him to stop, he told her he could “get rid of her” anytime he wanted. 

 

The security director claimed the alleged conduct was consensual and that he and the complainant remained friends. The hotel said it could not be vicariously liable for the alleged conduct. The hotel said it had relevant measures in place to prevent sexual harassment. The hotel said that once it became aware of the alleged conduct, it undertook an investigation which resulted in the termination of the security director’s employment.

 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the hotel pay the complainant $68,000 as general damages.

Act Sex Discrimination Act
Grounds Sexual harassment
Areas Employment
Outcome details
  • Compensation
  • Training - named individual(s) to undertake anti-discrimination/EEO training
Amount $12,500
Year

The complainant was employed on a casual basis as a coach at the respondent gym. She alleged a colleague repeatedly touched her on the chest despite multiple requests not to do so. She claimed that when she reported this to her manager, she was told “he can’t help it, he doesn’t understand boundaries”. She claimed her shifts were reduced after her complaint and she was required to work with her colleague on her own despite advising her manager this made her feel uncomfortable. She said her manager ultimately hired someone else to cover her shifts.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondents pay the complainant $12,500 and notify her once they had undertaken training on sexual harassment. The respondents also apologised to the complainant.

Act Sex Discrimination Act
Grounds Sex
Sexual harassment
Victimisation
Areas Employment
Outcome details
  • Compensation
  • Anti-discrimination/EEO policy reviewed/revised
  • Anti discrimination/EEO training introduced
  • Anti-discrimination/EEO training reviewed/revised
Amount $55,000
Year

The complainant alleged that a manager sexually harassed her by having unconsensual sex with her after a work Christmas party at his home when she was intoxicated and unconscious. The complainant was no longer employed with the company at the time the complaint was lodged.

The company claimed it could not be held liable for any alleged sexual harassment. The company said it had communicated with staff concerning conduct expectations prior to the party, food had been served at the event and the alleged sexual harassment occurred after the party ended and at a different location.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $55,000, review relevant policies and offer the complainant an opportunity to comment, commission appropriately qualified external trainers to deliver workplace behaviour training to managers, and commission trauma-informed training on sexual harassment for human resources staff.

Act Sex Discrimination Act
Grounds Sex
Sexual harassment
Areas Employment
Outcome details
  • Apology - Private
  • Compensation
Amount $190,000
Year

The complainant was employed as a senior lecturer at the respondent university. She alleged her manager sexually harassed her, including by staring at her body, touching her neck and hands, and asking personal questions. She also alleged her manager bullied her, undermined her and was hostile to her in meetings because of her sex. She claimed the university failed to respond appropriately to her complaints regarding the alleged conduct.

The university denied the allegations but agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the university pay the complainant $190,000 as general damages, write to her apologising for the hurt and distress she experienced and write to her outlining the outcome of its review into relevant policies and processes.