|
| skip top menu | home | contacts | site information | site map |
TRIBUNAL DECISIONSMatthews & Ors v.
Queensland Corrective Services Commission Background The complainants were prisoners who had been diagnosed as HIV positive. They claimed that they had been discriminated against on the basis of impairment which was their HIV status. This discrimination included a requirement that some of the prisoners were required to be housed in a segregated unit at the Moreton Correction Centre or segregated cottages at Numinbah Correction Centre. The complainants also said they were not given the option of seeking employment in the kitchen at the prison. The complainants argued that discrimination on the ground of impairment occurred in a number of areas including the work area and the accommodation area of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991. The respondents relied on the exemptions in s106 of the Act stating that certain conduct was authorised by subordinate legislation made pursuant to the Corrective Services Act. Also, the respondents sought to rely on the exemption in s107 and s108 that provides respectively, that a person may do an act that is reasonably necessary to protect public health or to protect the health and safety of people at a place of work. Outcome The Tribunal found that the allocation either to segregated accommodation at Moreton and the specially designated cottages at Numinbah constituted discrimination in the accommodation areas under s83 of the Act. The refusal to allow the complainants to be considered for work in the kitchen areas involved discrimination in the pre-work areas pursuant to s14 of the Act. None of the exemptions applied. The respondent was ordered to alter its custodial practices by 1 February 1998. In particular, it must not treat the complainants less favourably than others on the basis of the impairment of being HIV positive. Each complainant was awarded $2,000. Deborah Everett v.
Copperart Pty Ltd (Member Keim) Background The complainant alleged she had been discriminated against on the basis that she had a child. She applied for a position as full time Manager of one of the respondent’s stores. After a trial period, she was passed over for the position. She claimed she was informed by the officer responsible for recruitment, it was impractical for the complainant to work full time with a young child. At the time, the complainant had a 11/2 year old child. The respondent denied there had been any unlawful discrimination of any kind. It was claimed that the complainant did not win the job because the other applicant was assessed as being better able to perform the job. Outcome The Tribunal found that the substantial reason for the decision of the respondent’s employees not to choose the complainant as the manager was her parental status, as the mother of a young child. The complainant was awarded damages of $13,380 comprising pecuniary damages of $8,580; $3,000 for offence, embarrassment, and humiliation; and $1,800 interest. Costs were awarded to the complainant on the Magistrates Court Scale. back to story list | next story
|
|