Association case studies
The Anti-Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination on the ground of association with, or relation to a person identified on the basis of a prohibited attribute (for example: race, impairment, sexuality, religious belief etc).
Rejected because of being related to a child with an impairment
A teacher applied to attend a conference for educators of children with impairments. Her application was rejected because she is related to a child with an impairment.
The conference organisers offered her a place in the session for parents, but as she is not the parent of a child with an impairment, she refused the offer. The teacher lodged a complaint with the Commission alleging discrimination in the provision of goods or services, on the basis of
association with or relation to a person with an impairment.
The organisation that ran the conference was a registered charity, and claimed that because of its not-for-profit status it was exempt from the Anti-Discrimination Act. This exemption excuses not-for-profit organisations from discriminating when providing goods or services.
At conciliation the teacher said she was concerned about a lack of transparency and accountability, and that organisations could hide behind exemptions. The organisation explained that it offered the same sessions to both parents and educators, and that they were segregated because of participant feedback.
The organisation agreed to amend the registration form, and gave an undertaking to review the way the conferences are delivered.
Association with person with a political belief
This was a complaint of discrimination on the basis of political belief or activity, and association with a person with the attribute of political belief or activity, against four local government councillors and the Cairns Regional Council. The complainant's contract of employment was terminated, with no reason being given for termination.
The four individual respondents were councillors of the Douglas Shire Council before it became part of the new Cairns Regional Council in March 2008. The Cairns Regional Council inherited the liabilities of the Douglas Shire Council upon the amalgamation.
The complaint was made out against the Council but dismissed against the individuals because the Local Government Act protects councillors acting in their capacity as elected representatives, except in the case of dishonesty or negligence.
The complainant was engaged by the Council as a general manager for community and corporate services. From 2006 to 2008 the Council was divided by disputes about environmental issues, and was so dysfunctional that after a series of investigations, the local government minister proposed dissolving it. The disputes were largely between the Mayor on one side and the four individual respondents and the Council CEO on the other. The Mayor was supported by Roison Allen, an environmental activist who regularly attacked the four in the local press and council chambers. The complainant was in a de facto relationship with Ms Allen at the time.
During the final term of the Council, the Mayor was critical of the performance of the CEO and eventually the CEO's employment was terminated, and was not reinstated despite efforts by the four to do so.
At a meeting held shortly before the council amalgamation, and while the complainant was on sick leave, the four respondents voted in favour of terminating the complainant's contract, and this was done. The issue of the termination had not been on the agenda and no reasons were given for the termination.
The tribunal found on the evidence that the complainant's contract was terminated 'as an act of political retribution' either as 'political payback against a political opponent', or because of the complainant's association with Ms Allen. Although the respondents had filed documents in the tribunal alleging there were issues with the complainant's performance, they did not give evidence at the hearing.
The tribunal also found that although the contract allowed for termination for any reason on six months' notice (or payment in lieu), this did not allow termination for a discriminatory reason. In effect, parties cannot contract out of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 .
Total damages of $368,033.06 was awarded to Mr Carey, which included amounts for past and future economic loss, loss of opportunity, general damage of $30,000 and medical expenses.
Carey v Cairns Regional Council  QCAT 26, 21 January 2011
Discrimination by association: son and parents denied loan
A 27 year old man applied for a loan from a major financial institution with his parents, who were aged 51 and 70.They were refused the loan and claimed that they were told "Your age is against you " by the loans officer. All three lodged a complaint, the parents on the basis of age and the son on the basis of his association with the parents. The respondent financial institution denied any liability whatsoever, but following a conciliation conference agreed to pay compensation to the complainants.