Search results

<p>The complainant is Chinese and bought a discounted item on the respondent retailer’s website. He alleged that, when he attempted to return the item at one of the retailer’s outlets, a staff member said words to the effect that “you Asians” purchase discounted items only to fraudulently return them and claim the full retail price.</p> <p>The retailer denied the alleged comment but agreed to participate in conciliation.</p>

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

<p>The complainant claimed the respondent labour-hire company failed to respond to her emails and phone calls or to offer her work when she sought to return from maternity leave on a part-time basis to accommodate family responsibilities. </p> <p>The company said that during the complainant's period of maternity leave, it lost a major labour supply contract and so there were no roles to offer her when she sought to return to work.</p>

<p>The complainant is blind and requires sighted assistance to fill out and sign print application forms. He said that he requested assistance from the respondent bank to fill out an investment growth bond application form and was told he would be charged a fee of $2,600. </p> <p><br><br> The bank said there had been miscommunication on the issue and explained the fee quoted to the complainant was a fee for financial advice and not for assistance to fill out an investment growth application form.  </p>

<p>The complainant is 16 years of age and has dyslexia, and has difficulty with working memory, auditory processing, reading, and spelling. She alleged the respondent education standards authority declined her requests for adjustments to accommodate her disability during year 12 exams.</p> <p>The authority advised that the decision to decline the complainant’s original application for adjustments was overturned on appeal. The authority advised there was miscommunication about the appeal between the authority and the complainant’s school.</p>

<p>The complainant has anxiety and owns a home in a strata complex. He claimed he was unable to attend meetings of the respondent body corporate, which were held at residents’ homes, because of his disability. He claimed the body corporate declined his requests for meetings to be held offsite to accommodate his disability.</p>

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

<p>The complainant has physical disability as a result of having had polio and uses a motorised wheelchair for mobility. He claimed he was unable to safely and independently exit his driveway because the kerb was not accessible. He alleged the respondent local council declined to provide an accessible travel path from his driveway to the kerb. </p> <p>The council advised it is the responsibility of a property owner to cover any costs relating to access from council property to the home.</p>

<p>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.</p> <p>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 focused on taxable income. </p>

<p>The complainant alleged the respondent golf club discriminated against her on the basis of sex by removing early morning tee off timeslots for a women's golf competition while not doing so for the equivalent men’s gold competition. She also alleged she was victimised for the raising the issue with the club.</p> <p>The club said that the decision to remove the early tee off time slots for the women’s golf competition was based on the financial and practical needs of the club. </p>

<p>The complainant has psychosocial disability, including anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and panic attacks. He has two assistance dogs that assist him to stay calm and manage the effects of his disability. He alleged he was not permitted to enter his local library with his assistance dogs, despite providing evidence that they are assistance animals.</p> <p>The respondent council said it had reservations about whether the dogs were trained to meet standards of behaviour acceptable for public areas.</p>

<p>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.</p> <p>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. </p>

<p>The complainant is 66 years of age and an alumni of the respondent university. He sought to join a university club and alleges the club offered membership free of cost only to alumni under the age of 35. He said the club did not offer him free membership despite him being retired and on a fixed income.</p>

<p>The complainant worked for the respondent clothing retailer as a fitter of intimate apparel. She alleged the retailer reduced her hours from approximately 35 to three to six hours per week after becoming aware of her intention to have children. She further alleged that, once she informed the retailer of her pregnancy, her hours were further reduced and unwarranted concerns about her performance raised in an effort to pressure her to resign.<br><br>  <br><br> The retailer denied the allegations but agreed to participate in conciliation.</p>

<p>The complainant alleged that the respondent public transport provider withdrew an offer of employment in a managerial role because of his criminal record. The complainant had previously been convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and contravening a protection order. </p> <p>The transport provider claimed that its decision to withdraw the offer of employment was based on its legislative obligations. The transport provider claimed there were inconsistencies between police evidence and the complainant’s explanation of the circumstances surrounding his convictions.</p>