Conciliation Register

The complainant is 52 years of age and applied for an overseas position as an English teacher. She alleged the respondent company did not progress her application because it considered she would be unlikely to secure a visa due to her age.

The company claimed the decision not to hire the complainant was based on merit and suitability for the role.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company commission anti-discrimination training for all its staff, review its policies and procedures and recommend to its parent company that the recruitment process be reviewed in order to avoid age discrimination. The company also agreed to pay the complainant $2,000.

The complainants’ daughter has a form of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder associated with spending her early years in an overseas orphanage. They alleged that the respondent private K-12 school failed to appropriately accommodate their daughter’s disability and that teachers unduly criticised and penalised their daughter because of behaviour associated with her disability. The complainants withdrew their daughter from the school before lodging a complaint with this Commission.

The school claimed it and its staff took all reasonable steps to accommodate the complainants’ daughter and noted that the complainants only provided the school with their daughter’s formal diagnosis a few months before withdrawing her from the school.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the school pay the complainants approximately $17,600 as a refund to fees for two terms, a contribution towards the costs of relocating their daughter to a different school and as a contribution to potential future costs associated with managing her disability.

The complainant has depression, impaired mobility, is often bed-ridden and has an assistance animal. The complainant was a public housing tenant and claimed he was not permitted to install a fitted animal door on his property to allow his dog to move indoors and outdoors independently without the complainant having to get up to let the dog in or out.

On being advised of the complaint, the relevant government department indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try and resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the department install a fitted animal door on the complainant’s property at no cost to him. The department also provided the complainant with a contact point should any issues arise in the future.

The complainant worked as a bus driver and cared for his wife, who has schizophrenia, epilepsy and depression. He alleged the respondent bus company regularly rostered him on for night shifts despite his request that he work only during the day to enable him to care for his wife at night.

The bus company denied discriminating against the complainant, but agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant would be rostered to work until the early evening at the latest, subject to particular roster constraints that may arise from time to time and necessary reviews, such as staff shortages and/or timetable changes.

The complainant is deaf and uses Auslan to communicate. She said she was offered the use of Auslan interpreters on three occasions when she first started work at the respondent public hospital. However, she said no further Auslan support was provided over the ensuing years, meaning she was often unable to understand what was being said at meetings or training courses, including information about changes to her working hours.

The respondent hospital advised that reasonable adjustment arrangements for the complainant had not been formalised, but it was known she would benefit from access to Auslan interpreters. The hospital claimed Auslan interpreters were used for formal meetings, and lip-reading and text messages/handwritten notes were used in less formal occasions. The hospital argued additional use of Auslan interpreters would not have been practicable. The hospital claimed concerns were held about the complainant’s use of sick leave and her fitness for duty and she ultimately resigned.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the hospital pay the complainant $5,000 and write to her expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint. The hospital also agreed to deliver disability awareness training to its managers, with a focus on deafness.

The complainant identifies as a transgender woman and contacted the respondent insurer for the purposes of obtaining a quote for life insurance. She alleged a staff member of the insurer addressed her as ‘sir’ and told her that she would be assessed for life insurance as a male, despite identifying as female. 

The insurer explained a staff member initially addressed the complainant as ‘sir’ as an initial greeting and before being aware the complainant identifies as female. The insurer said the staff member again addressed the complainant as ‘sir’ after becoming rattled in response to the complainant’s conduct on the call. The insurer said applications for insurance were assessed using an underwriting rules engine which assesses applicants according to their sex at birth. The insurer explained that transgender applicants were assessed according to their sex at birth because risks associated with their sex at birth were unlikely to change due to a change in gender identity.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the insurer pay the complainant $5,000 and convey the issues raised in the complaint to its underwriter.

The complainant identifies as a transgender man. He alleged that when he attended a branch of the respondent bank, a staff member disclosed to a colleague that he was transgender and the two proceeded to stare at him. He further alleged that when he attended another branch of the bank, several staff members were discussing his gender identity and one proceeded to ask him intrusive questions about the transition process in front of other staff. The complainant advised he developed post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the incidents.

On being advised of the complaint, the bank indicated a willingness to try to resolve the matter by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the bank pay the complainant $32,240, offer him up to 12 telephone counselling sessions through its customer support service, grant him access to its customer financial assistance program and waive all fees associated with the discharge of his home loan with the bank. The bank undertook to require staff in branches within the complainant’s region to re-complete the bank’s existing mandatory workplace conduct eLearning module. The bank also agreed to consider any feedback the complainant may wish to provide on its discrimination policies and training.

The complainant is 77 years of age and alleged the respondent insurer did not offer him motorbike insurance because of its policy not to insure riders over the age of 75.

The insurer that, while there was a policy of not insuring riders over 75, staff had discretion to offer coverage to older riders. The insurer considered the complainant should have been offered insurance given he had previously held insurance policies and had made no claims under the most recent policy.

The complaint was resolved. The insurer agreed to update its policies and online systems to provide for the automatic acceptance of quotes for riders aged over 75, noting that whether cover was offered would otherwise be subject to the usual underwriting criteria.

The complainant is 70 years of age and was employed as a coordinator at the respondent childcare provider. She claimed her manager fabricated concerns about her performance and the organisation placed her on a performance management plan. She alleged her manager and the company were pressuring her to resign because of her age.

The company claimed genuine concerns were held about the complainant’s performance and arose from complaints by co-workers about her conduct. The company claimed the performance improvement plan was designed with the aim of helping the complainant improve her performance rather than to pressure her to resign.

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship.  The company agreed to pay the complainant approximately $17,000 in outstanding entitlements on a fortnightly basis, followed by a lump-sum payment of approximately $7,500.

The complainant has post-traumatic stress disorder, prolonged bereavement disorder and anxiety. He advises that he experienced difficulty in writing due to his disability. The complainant sought to lodge a complaint with the respondent government agency and was informed complaints must be made in writing. He alleged the agency declined to accommodate his disability by taking a statement by phone.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the government agency take a statement from the complainant by phone. The agency also undertook to to review its accessibility and complaint policies and to deliver regular training to staff on delivery of an accessible service to people with disability.

The complainant’s son has cerebral palsy, epilepsy, chronic lung disease and an intellectual disability and attended a public school for children with chronic and complex disability needs. The complainant alleged his son was spending too long travelling between school and home on the respondent department’s free transport service for children attending the school. He alleged that the department’s policy of allowing children to spend up to four hours per day travelling to and from school was discriminatory.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the department pay the complainant approximately $2,200 as a contribution towards the cost of arranging private transportation for the child to travel to school in the morning. It was agreed the child would continue to use the department’s transportation in service in the afternoon.

The complainant has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Tourette's syndrome, learning and developmental disability and generalised anxiety disorder.  He claimed that, on his first day of employment as a truck driver with the respondent company, he told his manager about his disability and need for assistance with writing, computer work and learning new tasks. He alleged the company did not make reasonable adjustments with respect to written and computer work. He also alleged a colleague bullied him, including by saying words to the effect ‘dumb f**k, I’m going to get you fired!’ and falsely accusing him of assault. The complainant said the company terminated his employment before the end of his probationary period.

The company claimed it terminated the complainant’s employment due to poor performance and not because of his disability.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $2,000 ex-gratia, provide him with a statement of service and offer a contact person as referee for future job applications. 

The complainant is 72 years of age and claimed the respondent financial institution declined his application for a credit card despite him meeting relevant income threshold requirements. He claimed the financial institution told him that his age was a factor in the decision to decline the application.

The financial institution confirmed it declined the complainant’s application for a credit card and explained that the process by which ability to meet payments was assessed could underestimate retirees’ ability to pay because it focussed on taxable income. 

The complaint was resolved. The financial institution offered the complainant a credit card following discussion of information relevant to the complainant’s ability to meet payments.

 

The complainant has a number of medical conditions, including osteoarthritis, kidney stones, diabetes and depression. She alleged that during her employment with the respondent plant nursery, negative statements were made about her disability, including that her disability impacted negatively on her performance. The complainant claimed the nursery required her to undergo a fitness for duty process and ultimately terminated her employment.

The nursery claimed the complainant’s employment was terminated due to poor performance and not because of her disability.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the nursery pay the complainant $10,000, provide her with a statement of service and characterise the end of the employment as a resignation. The nursery also agreed to write to the complainant expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint.

 

The complainant is HIV+ and attended the respondent driving school in order to obtain a truck-driving licence. She said that she disclosed that she takes medication to manage her disability to the driving instructor while the two were driving as part of a one-to-one lesson. She alleged the instructor told her she had put the lives of everyone who had been in the truck at risk, directed her to stop the truck and get into the passenger’s seat and drove back to the driving school. The complainant alleged that when she wrote down the name of her medication on a piece of paper at the instructor’s request, he picked it up by the corner with the tips of his fingers. The complainant claimed she felt the instructor was afraid of, and disgusted, by her. The complainant said she raised concerns about what happened with the driving school but was not satisfied with the response. She said she was unable to finish her driving course or obtain her licence.

The driving school said that the government authority that accredits the driving course requires students to disclose on enrolment if they are taking any medication. If a student is taking any medication, the student must be cleared by the authority before being able to undertake the driving course. The driving school said the complainant had failed to disclose that she was on medication. The driving school said that, on finding out that the complainant was on medication, the instructor had no option but to stop the truck and drive her back to base. The driving school said the instructor denied behaving in a manner that conveyed fear or disgust towards the complainant.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the driving school refund the complainant $1,350 for the cost of the course, deliver training to all staff on the needs of students with disability and draft guidelines for instructors on how best to respond to disclosures by students that they are on medication.