- Current page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- …
- Next page Next
- Last page Next »
Conciliation Register
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 |
Disability Discrimination Act |
Grounds |
Disability |
Areas |
Employment |
Outcome details |
Compensation |
Amount | $20,000 |
Year |
The complainant aggravated a pre-existing back injury in the course of his employment with the respondent farm. He alleged the farm treated him less favourably because of his disability, including by telling him he was “no good for them anymore” and should look for another job, transferring him into less favourable onsite accommodation, requiring him to return a vehicle to which he had exclusive use, discouraging him from making a workers compensation claim, refusing to provide him with light duties in accordance with his certificates of capacity, and making him redundant.
The farm denied discriminating against the complainant.
The farm agreed to pay the complainant $20,000 as general damages.
Act |
Racial Discrimination Act |
Grounds |
Colour Ethnic origin National origin/extraction Race Racial hatred |
Areas |
Employment Other section 9 Racial hatred |
Outcome details |
|
Amount | $10,000 |
Year |
The complainant advises he is Afro-Caribbean and worked at the respondent telecommunications company. He alleged a manager casually used the term “n****r” and another manager referred to African people as “black c**ts”. He claimed he approached human resources on two occasions but there was no action taken on the first occasion and on the second occasion he was told to raise his concerns with the relevant manager directly. He claimed he was paid less than colleagues in the same role because he had raised concerns about the alleged racist conduct. The complainant said he felt he had no option but to resign. He said his last pay was reduced and commission revoked, but when he attempted to raise the issue, was told not to contact the company again.
The company denied discriminating against the complainant but expressed regret that he felt his internal complaints were not appropriately dealt with and that he did not feel comfortable in the workplace. The company said the alleged conduct by the managers was not consistent with its policies or expectations of workplace conduct. The company also acknowledged that, on review, the complainant’s internal complaints were not appropriately dealt with under the appropriate policies.
The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $10,000 as general damages and write to him expressing regret that his complaints were not processed with the requisite gravity or in accordance with company policy. The company undertook to continue to focus on training its staff to foster a safe, inclusive and respectful workplace culture.
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 |
Disability Discrimination Act |
Grounds |
Disability |
Areas |
Goods, services and facilities |
Outcome details |
Compensation |
Amount | $3,500 |
Year |
The complainant is blind. He alleged he fell and injured himself while boarding a bus operated by the respondent council because it stopped too far from the bus stop. He said that when he contacted council to request CCTV footage of the incident, the respondent staff member directed him to make his request using an online form, despite the complainant explaining this would be difficult for him because he is blind.
The council denied discriminating against the complainant.
The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the council pay the complainant $3,500.
Act |
Disability Discrimination Act |
Grounds |
Disability |
Areas |
Employment |
Outcome details |
|
Amount | $7,500 |
Year |
The complainant has Attention-Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder and Persistent Depressive Disorder and works as a distance education teacher with the respondent government department. He alleged the department declined his request to work from home to accommodate his disability on the basis that he had not provided sufficient evidence to support his request.
On being notified of the complaint, the department indicated it would be open to allow the complainant to work from home to accommodate his disability, so long as the adjustments did not prevent the complainant from performing the inherent requirements of his role or cause unjustifiable hardship to the Department.
The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the department write to the complainant expressing its regret for the events giving rise to the complaint and pay him $7,500 as general damages. The department also agreed that its senior managers would undertake e-learning modules on managing staff with disability.
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 |
Disability Discrimination Act |
Grounds |
Disability |
Areas |
Goods, services and facilities |
Outcome details |
Compensation |
Amount | $1,500 |
Year |
The complainant wears a badge identifying that they have a vision impairment. The complainant alleged that two staff from the respondent security company stopped him as he approached the checkout counter of the respondent grocery store for a bag check. The complainant alleged the security staff spoke to them in an aggressive and intimidating manner and did not identify themselves despite the complainant complying with the bag check.
The respondents denied discriminating against the complainant.
The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondents make a joint payment to the complainant of $1,500.
Act |
Disability Discrimination Act |
Grounds |
Assistance animal Disability |
Areas |
Goods, services and facilities |
Outcome details |
|
Year |
The complainant is blind and alleged the respondent bar refused her entry because she was accompanied by a guide dog.
The complaint was resolved when, in response to the complaint, the bar apologised to the complainant for her experience, delivered training to staff and managers on their obligations towards patrons with assistance animals and updated its operations manual.
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 |
Disability Discrimination Act |
Grounds |
Disability |
Areas |
Employment |
Outcome details |
Employment - adjustments provided |
Amount | - |
Year |
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.
Act |
Disability Discrimination Act |
Grounds |
Disability |
Areas |
Employment |
Outcome details |
Compensation |
Amount | $7,500 |
Year |
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.
Act |
Disability Discrimination Act |
Grounds |
Disability Victimisation |
Outcome details |
|
Amount | - |
Year |
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.