Conciliation Register

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 is 83 years of age and holds a credit card with the respondent financial institution. The financial institution offers customers with this credit card free travel insurance. The complainant alleged he was unable to access this benefit because the respondent insurer did not offer travel insurance to people over 80 years of age at the time he sought to travel.

The respondents claimed any discrimination was not unlawful because they relied on statistical and actuarial data on which it was reasonable to rely when assessing eligibility.

The complaint was resolved. The insurer undertook to take the complainant’s concerns into consideration going forward and the financial institution waived its credit card membership fee for twelve months.

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.

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 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.

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 has a 6 month old exclusively breastfed baby and applied to the respondent educational body to sit a tertiary level admissions test. She alleged she was informed two days before the exam that she would not be permitted to breastfeed her baby on demand but rather, during the lunch break. The complainant noted this would mean she would not have a lunch break like others sitting the exam.

On being advised of the complaint, the respondent agreed to participate in a conciliation process to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondent write to the complainant apologising for her experience and offer a refund for the cost of the exam. The respondent also undertook to review its processes and training to improve information provided to breastfeeding people sitting exams and consider accommodating the needs of breastfeeding people in the context of existing adjustment guidelines.

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 worked for the respondent real estate agency. She alleged that after being informed she was pregnant, colleagues made negative comments, including "you are pregnant and useless, go home". She claimed the agency denied her request to work from home for part of the day at her doctor’s recommendation even though other staff were permitted to work from home. The complainant alleged that after she raised concerns about the above, the agency removed her from a work-related chat group, instructed her colleagues not to nominate her as a secondary contact when absent and refused to attempt to resolve an underpayment concern.

The agency said it was unable to substantiate the alleged comments. The agency said it understood the complainant’s request to be for part-day paid personal leave rather than working from home and this was provided. The agency said it removed the complainant from the chat group and instructed colleagues not to name her as a secondary contact because she had commenced parental leave. The agency denied allegations of underpayment.

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship and the agency agreed to pay the complainant $10,000 as general damages in two instalments and provide her with a statement of service. The agency agreed to write to the complainant expressing regret for any comments or actions that she may have perceived as hurtful, insensitive or harmful.

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 is 80 years of age and has a disability that impacts his mobility. He uses a scooter for mobility and alleged his local council refused his request to provide footpath access to his home.

The complainant considered his complaint resolved after being notified that the council would construct footpath access to his home as part of its building infrastructure plans for the following year.

The complainant is a Russian national and alleged the respondent organisation did not offer her a job, citing sanctions against Russia in place at the time of the recruitment process.

The organisation said the decision was made in compliance with relevant sanctions against Russia and it could be in breach of the law if it hired the complainant. The organisation indicated a willingness to try and resolve the complaint by conciliation. 

The parties discussed the sanctions laws and the risk assessment employed by the respondent at the conciliation conference. The complainant was satisfied with the detailed explanation provided by the respondent during conciliation, and was content to close the complaint as resolved on the basis of the information provided. 

The complainant worked at the respondent consultancy as a change manager. She alleged that at a company function, the CEO sexually harassed her, including by making comments of a sexual nature, attempting to kiss her, and touching her bottom. The complainant alleged that in response to her complaint about the CEO’s conduct, she was offered some leave and access to five counselling sessions, but there appeared to be no action taken against the CEO. She said she felt she had no option but to resign. She alleged that when her lawyers contacted the company in relation to her allegations and intent to lodge a complaint with the Commission, the company declined to pay her money she was owed and threatened to report her to the police for accessing company systems after the end of her employment.

The company denied unlawful discrimination but agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $105,000 and provide her with a statement of service.

The complainant has a psychosocial disability and has an assistance dog. She alleged the respondent motel informed her that pets were not permitted and she would need to pay a $60 cleaning fee if she wished to proceed with her booking. The complainant chose to leave.

On being informed of the complaint, the motel indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the motel:

• Write to the complainant apologising for the incident and any adverse impact it had on her

• Review its policies and procedures with regard to its legal obligations to offer services to people with disability with assistance animals without discrimination

• Ensure its owners and staff undertake an online training module developed by an organisation that trains assistance animals for people with psychosocial disability

• Donate $1,500 to the organisation 

• Pay the complainant approximately $320 in compensation for property left at the motel.

The complainant has psychosocial disability and uses an assistance animal. She alleged she was directed to leave the respondent hotel because she was accompanied by her assistance dog.

The hotel claimed the complainant failed to provide evidence that her dog is an assistance animal.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the hotel write to the complainant expressing regret for the distress the complainant experienced and welcoming her to attend the hotel with her assistance dog in future.