THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS - 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.

Background

At times the Commission receives complaints which indicate that discrimination may have occurred but which fall short of the threshold requirements. In such cases the Commission may investigate the matter before it is accepted as a complaint. In this way the complainant’s right to make a complaint is not summarily terminated. The principles of natural justice are upheld for the potential respondent who is given the opportunity to present material in the course of the investigation.

Threshold requirements

The complainant alleged that she had been discriminated against by an educational institution and its staff, both administrative and teaching, by a negative and unsupportive attitude to her.It was her belief that this was because of her race and as a result, she was not succeeding in her studies.

Racism is often a matter of attitude and it is notoriously difficult for complainants to identify clear links between racist attitudes and actions taken against them. The Commission is very careful not to prematurely terminate race complaints because racism is often insidious and covert. Keeping this in mind, the Commission sought the views of the institution in question in order to investigate the matter further.

The institution co-operated fully and assisted the Commission by providing access to records regarding the queries raised by the student, response to these and actions taken to support the student in her studies as well as co- ordinating opportunities for the Commission to interview staff.

It became apparent through these extensive inquiries that the student’s suspicions were unfounded and that the institution had properly sought to assist her. The student was difficult interpersonally and struggled with her studies. The numerous counselling sessions and assistance offered to her were well documented and transparent.

The complaint was not accepted by the Commission.

Threshold requirements not reached

A woman said she was dismissed from a casual job because of a "no couples policy " (and thus relationship status discrimination).

The employer raised several issues including diminished work performance by the complainant; a directive from head office to reduce the use of casual staff; and general workplace conflict involving the complainant. Most importantly, the employer pointed to other current employees who were in a recognised relationship.

The respondent was able to document the diminished work performance, the directive from head office to reduce the use of casual staff and provide statements from two couples who were employed by the company. In the course of the investigation it was also documented that the complainant had established a business which was in direct competition with the respondent.

The Commission rejected the complaint as lacking in substance.

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.