Conciliation Register

The complainant's son is on the Autism Spectrum and has Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder, among other disabilities. He attended the respondent K-12 independent faith-based school. The complainant alleged the school did not take reasonable steps to assist her son to transition from Year 6 to Year 7 and failed to provide him with reasonable adjustments. She claimed this led to an escalation in behaviour by her son and alleged the school responded in a punitive way by suspending him on multiple occasions rather than appropriately accommodating his disability. The complainant also alleged the school treated her less favourably as a parent of a student with disability by not addressing her concerns and making her feel guilt and shame by discussing concerns raised by other parents about her son. The complainant advised she felt she had no option but to remove her son from the school. 

The respondent school denied discriminating against the complainant or her son but indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the school pay the complainant $30,000 as general damages and write to her and her family apologising for the hurt and distress they experienced as a result of the events giving rise to the complaint. The school also undertook to review its policies and procedures concerning supporting students with disability and behaviour management strategies more generally. Additionally, the school undertook to review training delivered to teachers to ensure appropriate training in supporting students with disability and behaviour support more generally. 

The complainant has a neurological condition and paraplegia. He claimed the pool at the respondent gym, which he used for hydrotherapy, was not accessible and he had fallen as a result. He claimed he was offered a water-wheelchair but felt this was undignified and railings should be provided to allow safe access to the pool. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking that access railings would be installed in the pool. 

The complainant is deaf and uses a cochlear implant. She alleged the respondent motel informed her she would not be able to bring her service dog with her because it did not allow pets in guest rooms. 

On being notified of the complaint, the motel indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the motel write to the complainant apologising for what happened and confirming that assistance animals and their owners would be permitted to stay at the motel. The motel also undertook to make a donation to a charity of the complainant's choice and agreed to engage an independent third-party training organisation to train staff and develop a policy on assistance animals.  

The complainant’s adult son has an acquired brain injury, experiences seizures and uses a wheelchair. The complainant advised she booked a wheelchair accessible taxi with the respondent taxi company to take her son to the local pool for hydrotherapy and bring him home afterwards. She alleges the taxi booked to bring her son home did not arrive, leaving him alone and wet at the pool carpark. 

On being advised of the complaint the respondent taxi service indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the taxi service write to the complainant and her son apologising for the incident and provide a direct contact point for future bookings. 

The complainant was employed as a trade assistant with the respondent commercial bricklaying company. She alleged co-workers sexually harassed her by making comments of a sexual nature, including that she could swallow a banana whole and they were going to tie her up and take her to a rape dungeon. The complainant said the comments ceased after she made an informal internal complaint. She alleged that some months later, a co-worker distributed nude photos of her which he had taken without her knowledge or consent whilst they were in an intimate relationship. The complainant alleged the company had no policies or procedures in place to prevent or respond to sexual harassment in the workplace. The complainant felt unable to return to work. 

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

The complainant is Aboriginal and has post-traumatic stress disorder and other disabilities. He was placed with the respondent cleaning company by a disability employment service. He claimed he was triggered by a workplace incident where he was accidentally locked in a room for a time. He said he asked to always work with a 'buddy' but this request was denied. He said his employment was terminated after he brought a family member to work to accommodate his disability. 

The company said it was unaware of the complainant's disability or any need for adjustments. The company said all cleaners work with a 'buddy'. The company confirmed it terminated the complainant’s employment after he brought a family member onto a work site on multiple occasions against his manager's direction. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company would characterise the end of the employment relationship as a resignation and provide the complainant with a statement of service. The company agreed to write to the complainant expressing regret that there was miscommunication and he felt unsupported in the workplace. The company undertook to investigate the provision of training on mental health for its staff and to review its policies on supporting employees with disability. The company also agreed to pay the complainant $4,750 as general damages. 

The complainant has a lung disease and believed she would be eligible for an exemption from mask-wearing requirements imposed in response to COVID-19. She said she felt breathless when attending the respondent bank and so pulled her mask below her chin. She alleged a bank attendant and the branch manager insisted the mask must cover her nose and mouth. 

On being notified of the complaint the bank indicated a willingness to attempt to resolve the complaint by conciliation. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the bank pay the complainant $1,500. 

The complainant is Vietnamese and attended an outlet of the respondent telecommunications retailer. He alleged he was refused an advertised concession discount and his concession card was not accepted because of his race. He alleged customers who were not Vietnamese received more favourable treatment. 

The telecommunications retailer advised the complainant could not be offered the discount retrospectively. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the telecommunications retailer deliver training to the staff involved and write to the complainant apologising for his in-store experience. The retailer also offered he complainant approximately $300 in credit, an amount equivalent to the discount he was seeking. 

The complainant was employed in a human resources role with the respondent property management company. She advised she was in a consensual romantic relationship with a manager that began before she was employed with the company and ended during her employment. The complainant alleged that after the end of the relationship, the manager sexually harassed her, including by sending her text messages about the women he would like to ‘f**k’ and telling her she should provide access as ‘every man likes pussy’. The complainant advised she was moved to a different reporting line after raising concerns about the manager’s conduct with senior management. She alleged the manager then told her she was not allowed to come into the office and her employment was terminated. 

On being notified on the complaint, the respondent indicated a willingness to attempt to resolve the complaint by conciliation. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondents pay the complainant $35,000.