Family responsibilities case studies
The family responsibilities discrimination case summaries are grouped into two categories: court and tribunal decisions, and conciliated outcomes.
- Family responsibilities discrimination: summaries of court and tribunal decisions
- Family responsibilities discrimination: summaries of conciliated outcomes
Court and tribunal decisions are made after all the evidence is heard, including details of loss and damage. The full text of court and tribunal decisions is available from:
Conciliated outcomes are where the parties have reached an agreement through conciliation at the Queensland Human Rights Commission.
Court and tribunal decisions
Father chose sick child over job
Type of outcome | Anti-Discrimination Tribunal Queensland decision |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Family responsibilities |
Area | Work |
Outcome details |
Apology Financial compensation |
Compensation | $33,500 |
Year | 2008 |
Summary: A complaint of discrimination on the basis of family responsibilities was successful after a man resigned his position when he was threatened with the loss of employment if he took his sick child to hospital. The respondents subsequently refused to re-employ him. The Tribunal also found unlawful discrimination had occurred as the employer had previously ceased training him for promotion to a managerial position because he had taken some short notice leave because of family responsibilities. The Tribunal ordered an apology ,$17,500 in compensation for hurt and embarrassment and $16,000 for economic loss. Bishop v Gedge & Rudd [2008] QADT 17 (5 August 2008) |
Conciliated outcomes
Family experiences challenges in hotel quarantine
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination plus Human Rights Act (piggy-back) |
Attribute | Family responsibilities; age |
Area | State laws and programs |
Relevant human rights |
Recognition and equality before the law (section 15) Freedom of movement (section 19) Human treatment when deprived of liberty (section 30) |
Outcome |
Acknowledgement Provided with hotel vouchers |
Year | 2020–2021 |
Summary A mother and her two children, aged 4 years and 18 months, were in hotel quarantine. The room did not include a balcony or opening windows, and she reported not being allowed to have wellness walks because the baby would not keep a mask on. She was also concerned that the food was not nutritional for children and arrived at an inappropriate time such as 8:00 pm. At the conciliation conference, the respondents acknowledged how difficult the situation had been for the family, and explained the significant issues involved in sourcing appropriate hotels to provide quarantine services to cope with the demand of returned travellers. The woman was satisfied with the discussions at the conciliation conference and felt that the issues had been satisfactorily addressed and resolved. As a gesture of goodwill, the hotel provided hotel vouchers to the family. |
Approved absence from social housing allowed mother to pursue training opportunity
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination plus Human Rights Act (piggy-back) |
Attribute | Family responsibilities |
Area | Accommodation |
Relevant human rights |
Recognition and equality before the law (section 15) Freedom of movement (section 19) Property rights (section 24) Protection of families and children (section 26) |
Outcome | Tenant permitted to be absent for longer than five months with certain conditions |
Year | 2020–2021 |
Summary Through conciliation it was agreed that the woman would be permitted to be absent from the property to complete the training, on the condition that she provide evidence of the requirement to attend, return to the property shortly after each absence, notify the housing provider once the training was completed, and continue to pay rent and maintain responsibility for the property during her absence. |
Roster changes conflict with child care
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Family responsibilities |
Area | Work |
Outcome details |
Apology Financial compensation |
Year | 2012-13 |
Summary: The employer salon manager decided to change staff rosters to better suit the business. When the complainant explained she had already arranged child care to suit her current roster and may not be able to rearrange it, the manager told her that it was not her problem and if she couldn't make child care changes she would lose her job. The complainant was able to rearrange childcare but when she later requested two days off over the Christmas period, the manager asked if she could get someone else to care for her children and then dismissed the complainant because she couldn't work the two days. At conciliation the employer agreed to give the complainant an apology and compensation in relation to discrimination on the basis of family responsibilities. |