SEX DISCRIMINATION - CASE STUDIES

The following case studies are based on matters which have been received by the Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland. They are provided as a guide to the range of outcomes which can be achieved, and kinds of issues raised.

Sex discrimination and sexual harassment

A woman alleged that whilst she was working in a building-related industry, a co-worker made a lurid suggestion for sex, which offended her. She claimed when she lodged a complaint with the company, the co-worker refused to apologise, and afterwards the company treated her less favourably by transferring her to another work site further from her home. During the first day at the new work site, she said she was subjected to belittling and humiliating comments and behaviour by co-workers which management encouraged and did nothing to stop. She left the work site and has not returned.

The company denied that they had treated the woman less favourably because she had lodged an internal complaint of sexual harassment, claiming she had been transferred to the new work site because of errors she had made in her work at the previous site. The company was unable to substantiate their claims of poor work performance. The co-worker who allegedly made the initial comment, admitted in the conference that he had made the lurid suggestion but had never intended to offend the woman.

The matter was resolved at conciliation, by the co-worker providing the woman with a sincere and genuine apology, admitting to the behaviour and acknowledging regret and remorse for his actions. The company agreed to pay the woman $2,500 for her costs to pursue the matter. The company also offered an apology for any offence taken, and a renewed offer of employment which the woman accepted.

Sex discrimination in the work area

While the Commission is not the body that rules upon the credibility of the parties’ version of events, when there is clear, independent, demonstrable evidence that discrimination has not occurred it is appropriate for, and indeed incumbent on, the Commissioner to exercise the discretion allowed under the Act to reject a complaint for want of substance.

Two complainants alleged that they were denied opportunity to seek employment in a service run only for women.

The respondent acknowledged that this was indeed because of their sex, as they were male, but advised that this was done as a welfare measure in the interests of women using the service who have been identified as a significantly disadvantaged group by the government. The respondent provided a range of information to argue the exemption relating to welfare measures, including:

• statistical information demonstrating the benefits to women accessing the program run by the service;
• sociological data regarding the need for a female environment due to common life experiences of women accessing the program; and
• information about the higher need for female staff due to their duties involving close physical and personal contact with women accessing the program.

The Commissioner formed the opinion that the respondent had provided sufficient independent documentation to establish the welfare measures exemption, and rejected the complaints.

Sex Discrimination in Provision of Goods and Services

A woman approached a company to purchase some goods. She asked to make an appointment for a company representative to visit, to do an in home quote. The woman alleges that she was told it would be necessary for her husband to be present at the quote. She asked the company if the same question would be asked of a man in the same situation and alleged that she was not given an answer.

In response the company said that its aim is to have all decision makers present when quotes are given so as to ensure that the correct information is relayed to all involved in the decision to purchase. The company stated that single or widowed customers are given the option of having a friend with them when a quote is being provided.

In conciliation the company stated that they had not intended to act in a way that would be considered discriminatory. The company acknowledged the problems associated with advising married customers to have all decision makers present and giving an option to other customers such as those who are single or widowed to have a friend present. They acknowledged that this was less favourable treatment.

The company provided a written apology to the woman and agreed to develop and implement an anti-discrimination policy. This was done with the assistance of the Commission. After the conference the general manager of the company thanked the Commission for its assistance in bringing to their attention the potential problems with their previous practices. The company stated that they learned a great deal from being party to the complaint and that they will aim to avoid any further complaints being lodged in future.

Sex Discrimination in Work

A woman who had been employed in the office of a water transport business for a number of years, decided to seek employment with the same company as deck-hand. She expressed long-term plans to gain a Captain’s licence.

She alleged she was made to feel unwelcome by her male co-workers who commented to her that the work would be too heavy and dirty for her. The male co-workers conceded over time that she was able to perform the duties of the position as well as they could.

Because of a down-turn in business the company was forced to remove a service which resulted in a reduction in work hours for deck-hands. As a consequence her rostered water-time was shortened resulting in loss of hours and loss of training and career opportunities. She alleged her complaints to the company about unfair treatment by favouring male staff in the rostering times were ignored. In her view, the apparent necessity to reduce hours was unfairly distributed between her and her male colleagues. Her chosen career to aspire to Captaincy, she intimated, was seriously jeopardised.

In conciliation the respondents conceded that there were no female deck-hands, acknowledged that the comments about work being too heavy and dirty for her were made, and that this may have influenced the distribution of work. The complaint was settled by conciliation with payment of $12,000 compensation, a written apology and agreement that the company would undertake training on anti-discrimination.

This information is intended as a guide only. It is not a substitute for legal advice. For more information contact the Commission on 1300 130 670 statewide or Teletypewriter 1300 130 680 statewide.