Conciliation Register

The complainant’s six-year-old son has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Autism Spectrum Disorder and developmental delay. The complainant alleged the respondent independent school did not allow her son to attend the first week of kindergarten because he may scare other children and then would only allow him to attend school for three hours per day. The complainant also alleged that the school did not accommodate her son’s disability in the classroom, did not make allowances for her son’s disability when applying disciplinary policy and did not develop an individual plan for her son. The complainant’s son was ultimately suspended and the complainant removed him from the school. 

On being notified of the complaint, the school denied unlawful discrimination but agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the school pay the complainant $25,000. The complainant agreed to take down negative social media content she had posted about the school.

The complainant has memory loss. He said he sought to import his mobile phone number with the respondent telecommunications provider to a different provider. He said he was unsuccessful because personal information held by the two providers did not match. The complainant alleged that when he contacted the respondent to address the issue, he was required to answer a number of personal questions to establish ownership of the account. As the complainant could not recall the answers to the questions, he was unable to establish ownership of the account. 

On being notified of the complaint, the telecommunications provider denied unlawful discrimination but agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved once the telecommunications provider established the complainant was the owner of the account. The provider agreed to offer the complainant a free one-year phone plan.

The complainant works as a software support officer at the respondent company. He said that his son has a learning disability, asthma and Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder and needs a lot of one-to-one support and tuition. He alleged the company denied his request for a small reduction in working hours a few days a week to enable him to attend appointments and that a manager told him 'this is not a child care' and that it would affect the productivity of the team. He alleged he was singled out and required to take breaks at specific times.

The company said the complainant’s request could not be accommodated due to operational requirements. The company denied the alleged comment and said that all staff were required to take breaks for health and safety reasons.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant work from home for a set period. As the complainant would not need to travel to and from work, he would be able to take his son to appointments without changes to his working hours.

The complainant has osteoarthritis and uses lifts to accommodate resulting mobility difficulties. She alleged lifts at the respondent shopping centre were unavailable for an extended period, restricting her access to services on different levels.

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

The complaint was resolved with undertakings by the shopping centre to:

• Meet with the complainant to discuss her concerns
• Review its processes relating to regular monitoring of lifts, signage and customer feedback
• Source spare lift parts from different suppliers as appropriate and negotiate regular timely maintenance of the lifts with the current supplier
• Commission an independent review of the lifts.

The complainant has schizophrenia and a back injury and was employed in an IT role with the respondent government agency. He alleged he was treated less favourably because he has schizophrenia, including by being excluded from the workplace, being given excessive work to perform at home, having his personal property tampered with and being referred to as ‘weird’. He also alleged the agency failed to accommodate his back injury, including not allowing him to sit during standing meetings, not letting him work part-time and failing to provide easier access to bathroom facilities.

The agency claimed it made reasonable adjustments to accommodate the complainant’s back injury in line with his treating doctor’s recommendations. The agency said it only became aware the complainant has schizophrenia when he undertook a fitness for duty assessment after commencing leave due to ill health. The complainant subsequently resigned.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the agency write to the complainant expressing regret for the distress he reported, provide him with a statement of service and pay him $2,000 in compensation for non-economic loss.

 

The complainant has an intellectual disability and was enrolled in a course with the respondent vocational training provider to attain a qualification in aged care. She alleged she was refused an extension of time to complete the course requirements to accommodate her disability and her enrolment was terminated.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the training organisation take proactive steps to ensure that students who disclose a learning or cognitive disability understand the requirements of the course in which they have enrolled and their ability to ask for adjustments to accommodate their disability. The training organisation also agreed to write to the complainant apologising for the distress she experienced as a result of the breakdown in communication, provide her with a statement of attainment for units completed and offer her a $250 voucher for a service that provides assistance in resume development and other job seeking skills.

The complainant has arthritis and is unable to stand for extended periods. He alleged the respondent bowling club declined his request to have a small folding chair on the green while playing the position of ‘skipper’ in order to help him manage the pain associated with his disability.

The bowling club said it declined the request because a chair on the green would present a risk to the safety of players. The club noted all players have access to chairs off the green and the skipper is not required to be on the green at all times. The club proposed the use of a different aid approved by the national sporting authority.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant develop an alternative disability aid and the club consider approval of the aid for use in the sport.

The complainant was 69 years of age and has osteoarthritis. He said his local supermarket changed its payment policy to only allow payment by credit or debit card. He alleged this practice was discriminatory because older persons and persons with disability were more likely to experience difficulties in obtaining and using credit and/or debit cards.

The respondent supermarket advised it conducted a trial of card-only payment systems in some of these stores. The supermarket advised the trial had concluded and all stores accepted cash payments. The supermarket said that it appreciated that it may have moved ahead of community expectations and that not all customers felt welcome using card-only payment systems.

The complainant advised he considered his complaint resolved based on the supermarket’s assurances that all stores once again accepted cash payments.

The complainant is deafblind and uses a guide dog. She alleged that when she attended the respondent restaurant with her family, she was told she could not bring her ‘pet dog’ into the restaurant despite informing staff it was a guide dog. She alleged the owner asked her and her family to sit in a different section of the restaurant and then called the police.

The restaurant denied discriminating against the complainant, saying a dispute arose regarding changes to seating arrangements arising from COVID-19 restrictions.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the restaurant offer the complainant and her family a $120 voucher. It was also agreed that the complainant would review the restaurant’s assistance animal policy and provide feedback. The complainant agreed to provide the restaurant with a one-hour training session on assistance animals at a cost of $440.

 

The complainant has an assistance animal and sought to make a booking at the respondent hotel. He alleged the hotel told him his assistance animal would not be able to stay in his room. He claimed the hotel declined to consider evidence that his dog is an assistance animal.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the hotel pay the complainant $5000 and offer him one free night’s accommodation in the hotel.