Conciliated outcomes

Note: some of the details of these cases may have been changed to ensure the anonymity of the parties.

Age - Insurance

A man aged more than 75 had just bought a new car. He rang his insurance agent to organise coverage. The agent accepted his cheque, but called him two days later telling him he’d been rejected because of his age.

As compensation, the insurance company offered him coverage if he successfully underwent a medical. The man argued that he’d already had to pass a medical in order to get a driver’s licence.

He lodged a complaint on the basis of age in the area of insurance (goods and services).

In their response to the complaint, the insurers said they’d relied on actuarial and statistical data in their decision. They said this data showed that people over 75 years of age had more accidents.

At the conference, agreement was reached on the basis that all respondents provided a written apology to the man, and that procedures would be changed to take into account the different vehicle licensing laws of each state.

Sexual harassment - work

The allegations involved the owner of a business slapping a woman on the bottom on a regular basis, making comments such as being able to see straight through her shirt, and pressing up against her.

The woman also alleged that she was threatened with the sack, and that the owner had called her at home about why she wasn’t attending work.

The owner admitted to some of the behaviour, but said he stopped when another staff member pointed out that it might be harassment. He said he also apologised to staff if he’d caused any offence. He agreed that he had called the woman’s home, but in the context of a concerned employer.

The complaint was settled with the owner paying the woman $6000, agreeing to undertake training on the issue of discrimination, and an apology. The parties also agreed that neither would make derogatory comments in the future.

Age - (pre) accommodation

A parent booked and paid a deposit for a unit in a tourist area, for five students who were finishing school at the end of the year.

The parent alleged that when the unit owner realised the tenants were 'schoolies' he returned the deposit saying that the room wasn’t big enough for five people, and that he didn’t take schoolies.

A complaint was lodged on the basis of age discrimination in the area of accommodation.

In response to the complaint, the unit owner said the dispute wasn’t over schoolies, but about the size of the room. He said the room was too small for five people, although the room originally booked was big enough. That room was no longer available.

He also claimed schoolies caused a lot of damage and that he and other unit owners felt affronted that they were being forced to accommodate them. He said he wanted each of the students to pay $1000 up front as a bond.

Agreement was reached at a conference that the students would be accommodated.

Impairment - work

A man worked for a large firm in an acting manager’s job. The job was advertised as a permanent position, and he applied for it. At about the same time, he was diagnosed with a debilitating disease which required treatment.

While he was off work he was advised that he’d been unsuccessful with his application, and that the job would be re-advertised. He re-applied for the job and was again unsuccessful.

In response to the complaint, the employer denied any wrongdoing. They claimed that because of the illness, they assumed the man would be off work for some time, and therefore would not be capable of doing the manager’s job.

At the conference, agreement was reached to interview the man for the position. He was offered the job and accepted.

index of this newsletter