DDA Termination/decline decisions: Sport
Termination/decline
decisions: Sport
Summaries
of decisions by Disability Discrimination Commissioner or delegate to
decline complaints, and of the President of HREOC or delegate reviewing
such decisions; or (from 13 April 2000) decisions by the President or
delegate to terminate complaints.
Last updated: April 2000. Compilation and release of these summaries beyond 13 April 2000 has not been authorised by the Commission
No discrimination found in Paralympic classification
An athlete complained that he had been discriminated against when he
was classified as not having a sufficient level of disability to meet
the requirements of a sporting event he wished to participate in. The
President terminated the complaint. She considered that the athlete had
been excluded not because he had a disability but because he did not have
the particular level of disability required, and noted that a person without
any disability would have been similarly excluded. No direct discrimination
had therefore occurred. Regarding indirect discrimination, for the complaint
to succeed the complainant would have to show that he was required to
comply with a requirement or condition; that he could not or did not comply
with it; that persons without his disability could comply with it; and
that the requirement or condition was not reasonable. She found there
was a requirement or condition of satisfying the classification criteria,
which the complainant could not comply with, but that persons without
the complainant's disability could not comply with it either. Further,
having regard to its purpose the requirement or condition was reasonable.
The President also noted that in any event the defence under section 28(3)
of the DDA appeared directly applicable. This section confirms that there
is no unlawful act where a person has been excluded from a sporting activity
which is conducted only for persons with a particular disability and the
person does not have that particular disability. (June 2000)
Ban
on sighting device for bowler not unlawful discrimination
A
man with a visual disability complained that he had been discriminated
against by Bowls Australia's refusal to permit him to use an eyeglass
of his own devising in the game of bowls. The President confirmed the
Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner's decision to decline the
complaint. She noted evidence from the complanant's optometrist that his
visual disability was able to be corrected by the use of spectacles, which
were permitted for use in bowls (29 July 1998).
No
unlawful discrimination in prohibition on harness tying rider to horse
A
woman with a disability complained that she had been prohibited from competitive
horse riding using a "seat belt harness", an upper body harness
fixed at four points to the saddle. The President decided, confirming
a decision by the delegate of the Disability Discrimination Commissioner,
that this was not unlawful discrimination under the DDA. He found that
the respondents had legitimate concerns about the safety implications
of tying a rider to a horse, and that the rules applicable in other countries
reflected the same concern. He noted that subject to the rules riders
were permitted to make other adjustments to their equipment and use aids
or devices necessary to facilitate their participation in the sport (22
February 1996).
Application of dress requirements not unlawful
The
President decided, confirming a decision by the Disability Discrimination
Commissioner, that a refusal to waive a rule requiring women in a sporting
competition to wear socks if they wore shorts did not involve unlawful
discrimination against a woman with diabetes and related disabilities.
(These disabilities made it uncomfortable for her to wear socks.) The
rules had not been applied in a discriminatory fashion, and permitted
alternative dress which did not involve socks (28 August 1995).