Search results

<p>The complainant has osteogenesis imperfecta (also known as ‘brittle-bone disease’). She approached the respondent government department seeking clearance to teach at a public school after completing a teaching qualification. She alleged the department offered her limited permission to teach because of her disability. </p>

<p>The complainant has anxiety, depression and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and has two assistance animals. He alleged the respondent government agency told him he could not bring his dogs to appointments and that the police may be called if he tried to do so.</p> <p>The government agency claimed that, at the time of the appointment, the complainant was unable to provide any information to demonstrate that the dogs were assistance animals. The agency said the complainant was not denied a service, only asked to leave his dogs outside.</p>

<p>The complainant has hyperthyroidism and has an assistance dog. She claimed that the respondent hair salon indicated that it would deny her access with her assistance dog, unless her assistance dog wore some kind of protection on its paws or used a floor underlay, due to the salon having recently renovated its floors. </p> <p>The hair salon claimed that it never denied the complainant access outright. It claimed its suggestions for paw protection and/or a floor underlay were attempts to accommodate the complainant and her assistance animal.</p>

<p>The complainant became pregnant while undertaking veterinary nursing training with the respondent vocational training provider. She said the training included activities that could pose a risk to her unborn baby and the provider allowed her to commence a new course, though not to withdraw from the training. The complainant said she began a period of maternity leave but was still required to complete coursework and practical requirements.</p> <p>The vocational training provider denied discriminating against the complainant but agreed to participate in conciliation.</p>

<p>The complainant has paralysis in her right side and uses an electric wheelchair. She stayed at the respondent caravan park and alleged the accessible bathroom was not accessible to her because it had a steep, makeshift entry ramp and no horizontal grab rails in the shower. She also claimed that she was required to hold a key for the accessible bathroom by paying a refundable bond when she checked in. </p>

<p>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.</p> <p>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.</p>

<p>The complainant was employed by the respondent advertising company. She broke her arm outside work during her probation period and required treatment and time off work to recover. She alleged that she was told she had placed the company in a difficult position and that the company terminated her employment 11 days after she broke her arm.</p> <p>The company claimed the complainant was dismissed because of unsatisfactory performance.</p>

<p>The complainant was employed in a temporary administrative role with the respondent distribution centre while the company looked for someone to fill the role on a permanent fulltime basis. She alleged the company told her there was no further work available for her after becoming aware of her pregnancy, but employed another person on a temporary basis in her place.</p>

<p>The complainant alleged the respondent recruitment agency cancelled two job interviews because one of its clients became aware of his criminal record. He claimed a staff member of the agency told him the agency would no longer represent him because of his criminal record. The complainant had been convicted of possession of tainted material.</p>

<p>The complainant injured his wrist in the course of his work as a surgeon at the respondent public hospital and lodged a workers compensation claim. He alleged the hospital treated him less favourably because of his disability, including by dealing inappropriately with his workers compensation claim, unfavourable comments by staff, terminating his employment and denial of opportunities for locum work. </p>

<p>The complainant was offered employment at the respondent logistics corporation. She said she informed the company of her pregnancy at interview and sought leave to begin ten weeks after her role started in order to have her baby. The complainant alleged that she was told she was not welcome at the company and that the company terminated her employment on the basis that she abandoned her employment.</p>

<p>The complainant has arthritis and is unable to stand for extended periods. He alleged the respondent bowling club declined his request to have a small folding chair on the green while playing the position of ‘skipper’ in order to help him manage the pain associated with his disability.</p>

<p>The complainant has Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome and is extremely sensitive to commercial weed spray. She claimed the respondent local council proposed to spray commercial weed spray along the border of her rural property and declined her requests to create a spray exclusion zone and/or to postpone the spraying to enable her to make temporary arrangements for alternative accommodation. </p>

<p>The complainant was employed as a construction supervisor with the respondent construction company and has depression arising from a work-related injury. He alleged the company did not accommodate his disability and ultimately made his position redundant. He also alleged a manager referred to his time off work due to his disability as “a holiday” at a supervisors’ meeting.</p>

<p>The complainant said he was initially denied entry to a club operated by the respondent company because he was wearing a sleeveless top. He changed into a shirt with sleeves in order to be admitted into the club premises. He said once in the club, he observed many women wearing sleeveless garments. The complainant said the club manager responded to his feedback on the issue by confirming he had not previously met the club’s dress code.</p>

<p>The complainant was pregnant and worked for the respondent café. She alleged that, in response to a request for her roster, her boss sent her a text message saying 'due to your pregnancy I cannot give you any shifts at the moment'. </p>

<p>The complainant has a knee injury and applied for a role with the respondent law enforcement agency. He passed the relevant physical capacity tests but claimed his application was not progressed following a pre-employment medical assessment. The complainant alleged the agency mistakenly formed the view that he would not be able to perform the inherent requirements of the role.</p>