Impairment case studies
The impairment case summaries are grouped into two categories: court and tribunal decisions, and conciliated outcomes.
- Impairment discrimination: summaries of court and tribunal decisions
- Impairment 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
Unjustifiable hardship to fit wheelchair restraints on Brisbane buses
Type of outcome | Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Supplying goods or services |
Outcome | Complaint dismissed |
Year | 2022 |
Summary The tribunal heard evidence about the risk of movement and injury on buses, including that sideways tilt is the most dangerous for wheelchair users. It also heard evidence about the type of active restraints available and the costs and other considerations involved. Securing a person in a wheelchair or mobility scooter to the device requires the driver to leave the secure cabin, attach the restraint to the wheelchair or scooter, and in most cases to release the mobility device from the restraint. There was conflicting evidence on the time taken to secure and release the mobility device to and from the restraint, the cost of installing the restraint to a bus, and the time to install the restraint. The tribunal noted that the use in private vehicles or taxis of an active restraint system proposed by the man is effective and achievable. The situation is different for a bus route that involves a very large number of users each of whom has individual situations and equipment. The tribunal said it is a problematic proposal for the BCC bus driver to leave the driver’s compartment, go where the wheelchair user is situated, reach down to the floor level to attach the four restraint straps, and then lean across the person to pull a lap belt over where required. A former Anti-Discrimination Commissioner and advocate for disability rights, gave evidence for the BCC of his own experiences on buses as a person who relies on a motorised wheelchair. He said the time of the bus driver would be significant if repeated regularly, and an adverse response from other passengers may occur. The tribunal was satisfied that the practical and functional problems and difficulties as to implementation of active restraint systems in BCC buses as proposed by the man are real and significant and outweigh the benefits of their implementation. The tribunal concluded it was not reasonable to require any of the proposed active restraint systems to be installed on the BCC buses, and that it would impose unjustifiable hardship for the BCC to do so, at this time. The tribunal found that indirect discrimination was not established, and even if indirect discrimination was established, it would not be unlawful as the person would require special services and facilities that would impose unjustifiable hardship on the BCC. Yeo v Brisbane City Council [2022] QCAT 344 (4 October 2022) |
Holiday complex required assistance dog to be carried in a trolley
Type of outcome | Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment – reliance on an assistance dog |
Area | Accommodation |
Outcome | Complaint upheld |
Compensation | $8,000 for child |
Year | 2022 |
Summary The mother booked holiday accommodation in an apartment complex on the Gold Coast for her and the child and the child’s grandmother. The child relies on an assistance dog to assist with his autism condition, and the mother is the handler of the dog. The dog usually walks between the child and his mother. The managers of the apartment complex told the mother that owners of dogs in the complex are required to carry the dog in a shopping trolley on the common areas, and to exit the building via the basement carpark. Because of difficulty using a ramp in the car park, the child and his grandmother would exit the building by reception while the mother used the basement carpark to exit the building with the dog in the trolley. As a result, the family were unable to walk together. The arrangement caused distress to the child, and he was more difficult to manage because of the change to their usual routine of walking with the dog between the mother and child. The mother experienced stress and anxiety by the reaction of the child. The tribunal found that the managers imposed a requirement that the dog be carried in a trolley on the common areas and that the dog exit the building via the basement carpark. This caused disadvantage to the child and his mother and consequently they were not able to comply with the requirement. A higher proportion of people without the attributes are able to comply with the requirement. The manager was unable to provide any explanation as to why dogs were required to be transported in a trolley in the common area, other than it was a requirement of the body corporate committee. In the circumstances, the tribunal found that the respondents had not shown that the requirement was reasonable. The tribunal found indirect discrimination of both the child and his mother. The tribunal awarded compensation of $8,000 for the child and $5,000 for the mother. The tribunal made an order under section 59(1) of the Public Trustee Act 1978 that the compensation for the child be paid to the mother as trustee for the child. AEJ & Anor v Rozema & Ors [2022] QCAT 355 (19 October 2022) |
Pub refused to allow assistance dog inside
Type of outcome | Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision | |
Contravention | Discrimination | |
Attribute | Impairment - reliance on an assistance dog | |
Area | Supplying goods or services | |
Outcome | Complaint upheld | |
Compensation | $8,000 | |
Year | 2022 | |
Summary Based on the evidence, the tribunal was satisfied that the dog was an ‘assistance dog’ within the definition for the purpose of the Act, namely a dog trained to perform identifiable physical tasks and behaviours to assist a person with a disability to reduce the person’s need for support. The tribunal accepted that training of the dog does not require training by an approved trainer or an approved training institution. The tribunal considered that the behaviours that the dog was trained to perform need only involve obedience and companionship in order to assist the man’s need for support. In this case the dog was trained to be next to the man and the dog calmed him when he was anxious, and introduced him to many people. The man had a valid Translink Assistance Animal Pass, however when there was a change in management of the pub, staff insisted that the man could not bring the dog inside the pub because he did not have an identity card issued under the Guide Hearing and Assistance Dogs Act. The tribunal considered that on the occasions where this occurred, the man was treated less favourably than a customer of the pub who did not suffer from depression or anxiety and who did not rely on an assistance dog, and who sought to eat or drink inside the pub. The tribunal found that the comparator would have been permitted inside the pub to eat or drink, and that it was irrelevant that staff believed it was a statutory requirement that the man produce an identity card issued under the Guide Hearing and Assistance Dogs Act. The tribunal determined that the man had been discriminated against on the basis of his reliance on an assistance dog and that the pub had engaged in direct discrimination within the meaning of section 10 of the Act. On another occasion the man entered the pub with the dog wearing a vest and with a leash attached. A staff member asked for the dog to sit outside, and a discussion ensued with reference to the correct paperwork for the dog and the man abusing bar staff. It resulted in the man being banned from the pub for a month. The tribunal considered that on this occasion the refusal of entry was for two reasons – that the man did not have the correct identification for the dog to be permitted inside the pub, and the man’s prior conduct towards a staff member when the dog had nearly been hit by a car. The tribunal referred to section 10(4) of the Act, which provides that if there two or more reasons for the less favourable treatment, the treatment is on the basis of an attribute if the attribute is a substantial reason. The tribunal considered that this means the reason must be one of ‘real significance’ or an ‘operative’ reason. The lack of identity card under the Guide Hearing and Assistance Dogs Act was a reason of real significance or an operative reason, and a further instance of the pub’s policy not to allow not to allow the man inside the pub with the dog. The tribunal found that this was direct discrimination of the man. However, the tribunal considered that the reason for the ban was the prior conduct of the man towards a staff member. The pub relied on the exemption that allows a person to act in a way that is necessary to comply with, or is specifically authorised by, an existing provision of an Act. The pub claimed that under the Liquor Act 1992 it was required to provide and maintain a safe environment in and around the pub, and that permitting a small dog that was off-leash and/or not under the control of the man would contravene that requirement. The tribunal said the difficulty with that claim is that the pub had maintained that the man was refused entry with the dog because he did not have identification under the Guide Hearing and Assistance Dogs Act, and there was no evidence that it would have allowed the dog inside the pub if it was on a leash and under the control of the man at all times. The tribunal found that the refusal to allow entry to the man and his dog inside the pub was not an act that was necessary to comply with, or specifically authorised by, the Liquor Act 1992. The tribunal said that this finding does not mean that the pub couldn’t require that the dog to be on a leash as a condition of entry inside the pub, but rather the pub is not entitled to refuse entry to the man with his dog merely because the man could only produce a Translink Assistance Animal Pass instead of an identity card under the Guide Hearing and Assistance Dogs Act. The tribunal ordered the pub to pay the man $8,000 in compensation. Matthews v Woombye Pub Trading Pty Ltd [2022] QCAT 301 (2 August 2022) |
Tenant evicted for having an assistance dog
Type of outcome | Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Accommodation |
Outcome | Complaint upheld |
Compensation | $13,155.00 |
Year | 2020 |
Summary The woman and her husband lived in a unit that they rented. She applied for permission to keep the dog and was told that dogs were not allowed. The woman and her husband were later given a notice to leave the premises on the basis that they were in breach of the lease by having the dog on the premises. The Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 prohibits discrimination in refusing to allow a guide, hearing, or assistance dog in accommodation. An assistance dog is a dog that is trained to perform tasks and behaviours to assist a person with a disability to reduce the person’s need for support. There is no requirement that the dog be certified. This is different to the position under the Guide, Hearing and Assistance Dogs Act 2009 where it is an offence (that is, a criminal penalty) to refuse to rent accommodation to a person with a disability because they have a certified assistance dog. For the purpose of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 , the dog needs to be trained to perform tasks and behaviours to assist the person with disability. The tribunal found that it is not necessary that the dog is trained by an accredited or a recognised dog training body. In this case Muffin had been to puppy school and was in a psychiatric service dog training program. Muffin was able to sense when the woman was upset or anxious and had been trained to jump up on her chest to distract or comfort her. Muffin could also assist the woman by her steady presence and companionship. The tribunal was satisfied that Muffin had been trained to perform tasks and behaviours that assisted the woman to reduce her need for support. The tribunal found therefore that at the time the notice to leave was given to the woman and her husband, Muffin was an assistance dog. Although Muffin had not completed the formal training, she had been sufficiently trained to assist the woman. The tribunal found that evicting the woman from the premises was both direct and indirect discrimination of her. The woman suffered a significant degree of stress from being evicted, and she and her husband lived in camp sites and caravan parks and lost contact with friends. The tribunal awarded the woman general damages of $10,000.00 for stress, humiliation, and loss of dignity, as well as $3,115 for costs of storing furniture and belongings. Jackson v Ocean Blue Queensland Pty Ltd & Anor [2020] QCAT 23 (23 January 2020) |
Dialysis banned at work
Type of outcome | Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Work |
Outcome | Upheld |
Compensation | $33,906.16 |
Year | 2019 |
Summary At the time he developed the condition, the officer had worked as a residential care officer for 16 years and had been caring for three intellectually disabled people in a residence. The department determined that the officer could not continue as a residential care officer (RCO) while he needed to undertake the dialysis and he was redeployed to an administrative position. He returned to working as a residential care officer 11 months later, after having a successful kidney transplant. The tribunal held that the need to undergo dialysis is a characteristic that a person with chronic kidney disease generally possesses and was, therefore, part of the protected attribute of impairment. In this case the tribunal considered the circumstances for comparison include that the comparator is partially restricted for 20 minutes, and absolutely restricted for 30 seconds, in attending the needs of service users, and that the restriction occurs during a crib break. The self-administered medical procedure is a characteristic of the impairment and should not form part of the The tribunal found it was less favourable treatment of the officer to:
There was also a greater expectation of the officer in relation to the performance of his duties as an RCO than applied to other RCOs, and the respondents applied more onerous requirements than they expected of others. There was no material increase in the risk to service providers in the officer performing the dialysis treatment during his crib breaks. He would keep the service users in his line of sight when administering the treatment, whereas other officers using the bathroom, hanging out washing, or smoking outside during their crib breaks were not more responsive than this officer. The tribunal found that the officer’s position could be fulfilled and performed notwithstanding that over a crib break a person might be occupied in a manner that rendered them unable to respond to a situation for 30 seconds. The less favourable treatment of the officer was because of his impairment and the need to perform the dialysis treatment during his crib breaks. The tribunal also found that the respondents imposed a term that the officer could not perform the dialysis treatment at work, that the officer could not comply with that term where officers without his impairment could comply, and the term was not reasonable. There was therefore both direct and indirect discrimination of the officer on the basis of his impairment. The tribunal considered the exemptions of imposing genuine occupational requirements (s.25), special services or facilities required that impose unjustifiable hardship (s.35), circumstances of impairment impose unjustifiable hardship (s.36), and protecting the health and safety of people at a workplace (s.108). It found that there was no requirement to actively and continually support and supervise the service users for the entire duration of a 12-hour shift, there was no need for special requirements for the officer, there was no unjustifiable hardship on the employer, and removing the officer from the workplace was not reasonably necessary. The tribunal awarded the officer compensation of $33,906.16, made up of:
|
Able to comply with requirement
Type of outcome | Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Supplying goods or services |
Outcome | Complaint dismissed |
Compensation | Not applicable |
Year | 2017 |
Summary The man and his partner were making arrangements to move house, and they rang the ISP to ask about transferring the service to new premises. They weren’t happy about the additional cost to move the service, so they asked if they could cancel it. They were told to call again on the day they wanted to cancel the service. They were also told there would be a cancellation fee. The man then made a complaint to the ISP by email, and after another phone call, he asked for escalation of his complaint to take place by email. After complaining to the Anti-Discrimination Commission, the man cancelled the service by email, and he was issued with a final invoice, which included a cancellation fee. The man did not pay the invoice because he disputed the final account, and he was sent automated calls from the debt department asking him to contact them by phone. The debt was later referred to a debt collection agency, which sent the man correspondence telephone and other contact details, but no email address. Although the man was born with significant hearing loss, he had a cochlear implant that gave him significantly improved hearing. The tribunal found that the ISP had imposed a term that cancellation of a service had to be done by telephone (this was a mistake on the part of the operator as the ISP policy did allow cancellation to be done by email). The tribunal found however, that the man was able to comply with the term because the evidence showed he was capable of hearing and conducting conversation on the telephone in relation to matters of a straightforward nature. He spoke clearly, and the details required were of a straight forward nature, which he had managed before. In respect to being asked to contact the ISP by telephone about the debt, the tribunal said the request did not preclude other modes of communication, and did not amount to a requirement or condition. If the request did amount to the imposition of a term, the man was able to comply with it. The tribunal was not satisfied that the debt was referred to the debt collection agency because of the man’s impairment. If a term was imposed that the man contact the agency by telephone, the tribunal was not satisfied that the man was unable to comply with the term. There was no discrimination and the complaint was dismissed. Bell v iiNet Ltd [2017] QCAT 14 (27 January 2017) |
No job after probation period because of injury
Type of outcome | Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision |
Contravention |
Discrimination Unlawful requests for information |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Work |
Outcome | Complaint upheld |
Compensation | $10,000 |
Year | 2016 |
Summary The woman attended two interviews and a pre-employment medical assessment. At the first interview she was asked whether there was any medical or other reason that would prevent her from performing the duties, to which she responded At the medical assessment the woman completed a questionnaire that disclosed the injury, surgery and subsequent problem with the wrist. The examining doctor reported that there was potential impact on her ability to meet the requirements of the position, and recommended a review by an occupational therapist to determine necessary accommodations and limitations. After receiving the report, Council officers telephoned the woman and discussed the concerns flagged by the doctor in the report, and obtained a report from an occupational therapist. The doctor provided a further report on the adjustments recommended by the therapist. The woman was then sent an offer of employment, and when she commenced work she was given a work plan outlining restrictions on her duties. Towards the end of the probation period the Council asked the doctor how long the work restrictions were needed, and the doctor advised the restrictions should remain in place for a minimum of 2 years to prevent aggravation of the previous injury or create another over-use injury. The Council also asked the woman questions about her previous employment, and asked the previous employer for information about an aggravated injury she had endured. The tribunal found that questions about the former workplace and to the former employer were unnecessary to the continued safe performance of the woman's work, and were directed to the risk her injuries posed if her injuries were aggravated. The tribunal found the Council had sought unnecessary information on which unlawful discrimination could be based, in contravention of section 124 of the Anti-Discrimination Act . The tribunal also found that the reason for dismissing the woman was her impairment, and the attendant risk of a claim against the Council arising out of an aggravation of her injuries. The tribunal awarded general damages of $10,000. The claim for economic loss was not substantiated. Thorne v Toowoomba Regional Council [2016] QCAT 212 The award of damages was set aside on appeal. The Appeal Tribunal found there was an error in law in the conduct of the proceedings relative to proving damages. The assessment of damages was remitted back to the tribunal for decision. Thorne v Toowoomba Regional Council [2017] QCATA 128 (23 November 2017) |
Theme park rides
Type of outcome | Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Supplying goods or services |
Outcome | Complaint upheld |
Compensation | $500 |
Year | 2015 |
Summary The first incident was at Sea World, where the woman was in a queue for the Sea Viper ride. Although she was wearing an arm band issued by the park authorising her to go on the ride, the attendant pointed at the woman's left arm and shouted to another employee, The second incident occurred a few days later at Wet and Wild when the woman took the Kamikaze ride. There had been a delay in the ride and the woman felt that other patrons were blaming her for the delay because they were pointing at her and making rude comments. At the end of the ride the attendant asked the woman to remove armbands from other parks that she was wearing. The woman asked for help to do that because she has only one hand, and the attendant told her to go to guest services. The tribunal found the attendant had not been rude when he asked the woman to remove the armbands from other parks and that the request was not unfavourable. The tribunal said that in making the request the park did not impose a term on the woman, and even if it was a term, it was reasonable to aid in the safe and efficient provision of services to guests of Wet and Wild. There was no direct or indirect discrimination of the woman. The third incident occurred the following day at Movie World when the woman attended the guest services office. She complained that the guest services employee used the word |
Fingerprint scanner too difficult for person in wheelchair
Type of outcome | Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Administration of state laws or programs |
Outcome | Complaint upheld |
Compensation | $8,000 |
Year | 2015 |
Summary The tribunal found that the fingerprint process was prolonged, demeaning and intrusive. It was not reasonable to require a wheelchair-user with a paralysed hand to undergo the process using the fixed cabinet scanning device. The device was not designed for that use and the requirement was not in accord with the published policies of the Police Service about dealing with vulnerable persons with disabilities. It was reasonable to attempt to obtain prints from a paralysed hand by manually opening fingers, but unreasonable to repeat the process. Manually opening paralysed fingers several times amounted to indirect discrimination. The man who uses a wheelchair also needed to collect a document from the prosecutor's office to use in a court proceeding. The office was on an upper floor and there was no lift. Buzzers were used to gain entrance through closed doors, and he had to call out repeatedly to get attention and have the document brought down to him. The tribunal found that, while frustrating, the system in place to provide access for persons with mobility difficulties to an area not normally open to the public was not unreasonable. The option was also available to him to have the document emailed or posted. The man experienced discomfort, physical stress on his body, embarrassment, degradation, humiliation and anger, but no ongoing effect on psychological or emotional functioning. He was awarded general damages of $8,000 for emotional distress and physical discomfort from the fingerprinting episode. The tribunal also suggested that the respondent should look at improving the system of physical access to the prosecutor's office for people for mobility impairment. Hunter v State of Queensland [2015] QCAT 179 (18 May 2015) |
Depressed worker forced to do suicide prevention training
Type of outcome | Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Work |
Outcome | Complaint upheld |
Compensation | $10,000 |
Year | 2012 |
Summary The employer disputed the circumstances of training and the effect on the worker, however the tribunal preferred the evidence of the worker to that of the manager. The tribunal found a term had been imposed, and even though the worker did the training, she did it under duress fearing for her job security, and suffered extreme emotional distress. The tribunal found the term was not reasonable, and awarded $10,000 damages for emotional pain and suffering. Rushton v Muller & Anor [2012] QCAT 505 (24 July 2012) |
School did provide for student who learns more slowly
Type of outcome | Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Education |
Outcome | Complaint dismissed |
Year | 2010 |
Summary YB's mother made the complaint to the ADCQ as agent for YB when he was in year 10. During the course of the QCAT hearing, YB turned 18 and affirmed the complaint made on his behalf and took over the conduct of the complaint at the Tribunal. YB claimed to have a range of impairments including a phonological processing disorder, scotopic sensitivity, dyslexia, mild dysgraphia and executive dysfunction. He said these conditions caused him to learn more slowly than students without the conditions. Specifically, he could not get through required reading on time; had difficulty in organising, understanding and breaking down tasks; had difficulty reading documents in small font size printed on white paper and was unable to complete assignments on time or keep up with work. YB relied on a number of reports about his conditions, and QCAT analysed the expert and lay evidence, and determined that YB has a phonological disorder and some weakness in executive functioning which results in YB learning more slowly than a person without the condition, and constitutes an impairment under the Act. The Tribunal specifically rejected the assertion that YB has the conditions of scotopic sensitivity, dyslexia or mild dysgraphia. It was argued that the school imposed terms that: The Tribunal found that the school did not impose the terms as argued. It found that the school:
The complaint was not made out and was dismissed. With regard to costs, Member Endicott said: |
No realistic prospect of performing the duties
Type of outcome | Anti-Discrimination Tribunal Queensland decision |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Work |
Outcome | Complaint dismissed |
Year | 2008 |
Summary The Tribunal accepted that the woman's injury was sustained because of the repetitive nature of the duties required by the position, despite being given the lightest duties available at the meatworks. The Tribunal found that the termination was not discriminatory, because it was reasonable for the employer to form the view that there was no realistic prospect that she would be able to perform the position requirements, even if given time to recover from her injuries. It also found that the termination was excused under the workplace health and safety exemption in section 108 of the Act. Halle v Holmes & Anor [2008] QADT 28 (19 November 2008) |
Conciliated outcomes
Restaurant door not accessible
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Supplying goods or services |
Outcome |
Refurbishment including an accessible sliding door made a priority System to phone ahead for access until the door is installed |
Year | 2021–2022 |
Summary The restaurant said they were compliant with national disability standards and for this reason believed they were not required to make further access changes – however, at conciliation they agreed to bring forward planned refurbishments, which included a sliding door for easier access, by a year. The complainant was also given a phone number to contact the manager on shift so that until renovations were complete, he could call ahead and a staff member would open the door for him to access the restaurant. |
Accessible seating not available online
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Supplying goods or services |
Outcome |
Review accessible seating requirements in consultation with the complainant and a disability advocacy organisation Review policies and procedures Agreement to implement accessible seating booking process for all venues |
Year | 2021–2022 |
Summary He made a complaint to the Commission of impairment discrimination in the area of goods and services. At conciliation, the venue agreed to consult with the complainant and a disability advocacy organisation to review accessible seating requirements, and the ticket seller agreed to review their policies and procedures. Changes had already been made for a recent event so people could book accessible seats online. The ticket seller also agreed to consult with the complainant on ways to improve their accessible seating booking process and committed to rolling out the new system for all its venues by the end of the year. |
Worker refuses to disclose medical reasons for not wearing a mask
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Work |
Outcome | Return to work with alternative work arrangements |
Year | 2020–2021 |
Summary The respondent said they required her to wear a mask for the health and safety of other workers, due to her proximity to food preparation, and due to the inability for staff to socially distance at work. The respondent said that since the mandatory mask wearing period in Queensland it has introduced alternative working arrangements for workers who could not wear a mask for medical reasons so that they could continue to work but not risk contamination of food. The complainant initially requested compensation for economic loss and a written apology for what had occurred, but after hearing from the respondent she appreciated the genuine way they engaged in the process and the parties agreed for the complainant to return to her job with alternative work arrangements in the event mandatory masks were reintroduced. |
Appropriate accommodation found for family’s quarantine stay
Type of outcome | Early intervention |
Contravention | Anti-Discrimination Act plus human rights (piggy-back) |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | State laws and programs |
Relevant human rights |
Recognition and equality before the law (HRA section 15) Freedom of movement (HRA section 19) |
Outcome | Allocated more appropriate hotel quarantine accommodation |
Year | 2020–2021 |
Summary The complaint was resolved on the basis that the family was allocated more appropriate hotel quarantine accommodation of a 2-bedroom apartment with a kitchen and balcony. |
Health service acknowledges embarrassment experienced by patient with a disability
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Anti-Discrimination Act plus human rights (piggy-back) |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Supplying goods or services |
Relevant human rights |
Recognition and equality before the law (HRA section 15) Right to health services (HRA section 37) |
Outcome |
Discussion of future improvement Satisfactory explanation received |
Year | 2020–2021 |
Summary On arrival at the hospital, without asking, the nurses in attendance assumed he was incontinent and fitted him with disposable incontinence underwear. He says that he was not asked for his medical history and this made him concerned for his safety as he had a risk of haemorrhaging again if he hit his head in the wrong place. He requested that the doctor access his During a shift change the man overheard nurses on shift discussing his condition, asking whether alcohol was involved, and commenting that he was incontinent. He felt he was treated as if he had been drunk and that was the reason for the fall. The man felt judged and humiliated by the experience. The man attended a conciliation conference with representatives of the health service. The complaint parties discussed the complaint and the impact of the experience on the patient. The health service discussed improvement of services in the future, and the complaint was resolved on the basis the man felt he had received a satisfactory explanation. |
Suitable social housing secured for older woman with mobility issues
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Anti-Discrimination Act plus human rights (piggy-back) |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Accommodation |
Relevant human rights |
Recognition and equality before the law (HRA section 15) Right to privacy and reputation (HRA section 25) |
Outcome | Appropriate accommodation offered and accepted |
Year | 2020–2021 |
Summary Through the conciliation process, the social housing provider offered the woman a suitable one-bedroom apartment with an enclosed courtyard which was accepted. |
Transport service reviews disability policies and commits to training
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Anti-Discrimination Act plus human rights (piggy-back) |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Supplying goods or services |
Relevant human rights | Recognition and equality before the law (HRA section 15) |
Outcome |
Review of policies and procedures Staff training on discrimination and human rights |
Year | 2020–2021 |
Summary The complaint was resolved on the basis that the transport service agreed to conduct an internal review of its policies and procedures about the use of ramps, and to provide a copy to all bus drivers employed by it. Employees were also required to attend training on the Anti-Discrimination Act and the Human Rights Act , and an internal training module on human rights and improving services to people with disability was introduced. |
Childcare worker dismissed due to long-term injury
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Work |
Outcome |
Financial compensation Statement of service Written apology |
Compensation | $15,000 |
Year | 2020–2021 |
Summary When the new director commenced, she directed the complainant to work in the babies’ room and refused to allow her to continue in her adjusted duties. The complainant could not work in the babies’ room as it exacerbated her injuries. The complainant was sent for an independent medical assessment which confirmed she was not able to perform the requirements of her role as a childcare educator. The complainant was directed not to attend work and to use her sick leave. The respondents denied that the complainant’s age was a relevant factor in their decisions. They admitted their intention to terminate the complainant’s employment was due to the complainant’s inability to fulfil the requirement of her substantive role as a carer for the children at the centre. The respondents advised the administrative positions were already filled by people who had been there for many years so there was no opportunity for the complainant to transfer to an administrative role. The complaint resolved by payment of $15,000 compensation to the complainant, a statement of service, and both the director and the corporate respondent provided the complainant with a written apology. |
School and parents work together to support a child with a disability
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination plus Human Rights Act (piggy-back) |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Education |
Relevant human rights | Right to education (HRA section 36) |
Outcome |
Develop an Individual Behaviour Support Plan for student Regular meetings |
Year | 2020–2021 |
Summary Following a conciliation conference, the mother agreed to share information from the child’s treating occupational therapist, and the school agreed to take this report into consideration in the development of an Individual Behaviour Support Plan. To improve future communication, the mother and the school agreed to use a communication book and meet at the beginning of each term to discuss the plan. |
Woman's mental health deteriorates in hotel quarantine
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination plus Human Rights Act (piggy-back) |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | State laws and programs |
Relevant human rights |
Recognition and equality before the law (section 15) Freedom of movement (section 19) |
Outcome |
Acknowledgement Assistance to apply for a quarantine fee waiver |
Year | 2020–2021 |
Summary In conciliation, the respondents acknowledged how challenging it was for the woman in quarantine while explaining the public health importance of the quarantine system in containing COVID-19. They agreed to help her apply for a quarantine fee waiver on the basis of her personal circumstances. |
Child with type 1 diabetes refused enrolment in childcare centre
Type of outcome | Early intervention |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Supplying goods or services |
Outcome |
Staff training in type 1 diabetes management Management and staff training on Anti-Discrimination Act obligations Statement of regret |
Year | 2020–2021 |
Summary The respondents said that they had not wanted to discriminate against the complainant or her son, but that it was difficult to arrange the necessary staff training due to the remote location of the childcare centre. The complaint was resolved by early intervention. The respondents agreed that a minimum of two staff members would be trained in type 1 diabetes management at all times, including annual refresher training, and that the executive management team, nominated management staff, and all new staff would attend training on their rights and obligations under the Anti-Discrimination Act . The respondents also gave the complainant and her son a statement of regret for the period she could not enrol her son in childcare. |
Unreasonable restrictions in insurance policy
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Insurance |
Outcome |
Mutual non-disparagement and confidentiality agreement Provision of insurance at standard rates, with less restrictive exclusion clauses |
Year | 2019–2020 |
Summary The trustee of the superannuation fund asked the complainant to undergo a blood test and the results were normal. After that, the trustee offered the complainant insurance but with a broad exclusion clause for TPD and income protection, excluding liability to pay any benefit under the policy arising from specific psychological type illnesses, or disorders relating to substance abuse or dependence including alcohol and drugs. The offer also stipulated a 100% loading on the premium payable The complainant requested a review of the decision and asked the insurer to provide evidence to justify why she was considered to be at higher risk. The company issued an amended offer which reduced the loading to 50% but retained the mental health exclusion. The complainant argued there was a lack of evidence to justify such a broad exclusion or the loading. Both the trustee of the superannuation and the insurer were named as respondents. The respondents argued that the exclusion and loading placed on the offer of insurance were not discriminatory. They provided a significant amount of published information about the psychiatric conditions, and how that applied to make the decision about what terms to place on the offer of insurance to the complainant. Separate agreements were reached with each of the respondents including mutual non- disparagement and confidentiality with one of the respondents. An agreement was reached with the other respondent to provide insurance at standard rates with a much less restrictive exclusion clause relating to anxiety, depression and stress, and subject to completion and assessment of a current underwriting health declaration. The respondent also reserved the right to obtain further supporting medical verification and information on any future increases or alteration in cover in the event of an increase in risk. |
Entry refused to a customer with assistance dog
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Supplying goods or services |
Outcome |
Policy change Complainant to share suggestions for policy review |
Year | 2019–2020 |
Summary The respondents cited biosecurity risks as the reason for putting restrictions on animals entering the venue. The parties agreed that the respondents change their policies on dogs and allow assistant dogs to the venue, provided they met a public access test and applicable regulations. The respondent also agreed to review their policy regarding tours by persons with assistance dogs. It was also agreed that the complainant share suggestions for policy review with the respondent. |
Oppressive accommodation clauses for tenant with a disability
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Accommodation |
Outcome |
Financial compensation Apology Training in discrimination |
Compensation | $8,000 |
Year | 2019–2020 |
Summary The organisational respondent representatives were new to the organisation. They agreed that matters had been handled poorly and there were serious issues in relation to the management of the unit complex. Prior to the conference all tenant leases were remade to omit the additional clauses and the complex manager was disciplined. The complaint was resolved on the basis of $4000 general damages and $4,000 economic loss (for a home based business the complainant could not continue due to lack of privacy), an apology, and training in discrimination for the complex manager. |
Body Corporate denied disability access
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Accommodation |
Outcome | Automatic door opening mechanism agreed to |
Year | 2019–2020 |
Summary The Body Corporate were compassionate to the complainant's situation but did not believe it was their responsibility to install the automatic mechanism. Following conciliation the Body Corporate agreed to install the automatic mechanism. |
Piercing service refused to HIV positive customer
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention |
Discrimination Unlawful requests for information |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Supplying goods or services |
Outcome |
Financial compensation Training in discrimination for staff Questions removed from form |
Compensation | $2,000 |
Year | 2019–2020 |
Summary The respondent organisation indicated that they did not believe the question on the form was discriminatory because the question was asked as a precaution if the client suffered adverse symptoms as a result of the piercing. The individual respondent stated that she was following employer policy and would have pierced the complainant if he had provided a doctor's certificate to indicate it was safe to do so. The complaint was resolved by payment of compensation to the complainant of $2,000 plus $25 refund of piercing deposit. Training for all staff inoccupational exposure and discrimination principles relating to HIVwas agreed. The questions regarding HIV were removed from the consent form. |
Mother’s anaphylactic allergy not understood by childcare centre
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Supplying goods or services |
Outcome |
Apology Policy established Financial donation to charity Training in discrimination and anaphylaxis |
Year | 2019–2020 |
Summary The respondent arranged a Christmas party at the centre including the use of latex balloons. The complainant reminded the centre of the allergy management plan and supplied latex free alternatives at her own cost. Despite this the latex balloons were used as were the alternatives. After the party airborne particles transferred onto the children’s clothing and the complainant suffered a reaction, developed complications and was off work and unable to socialise for five weeks. The complainant moved her children to another centre. At conference the respondent explained they did not understand the complexity of the situation. They thought they had minimised the risk as the balloons were blown up after the children had left, they were stored in another room overnight, they were hung high before the children arrived, they were removed when the children were not in the room and the children did not touch the balloons. They just wanted to make all the kids and parents happy. They apologised for the stress and advised there was no deliberate intention to harm the complainant. The complaint was resolved with the establishment of an Allergy Management Policy in line with the national laws and regulations, a financial donation to a specific allergy organisation, and the individual respondent agreeing to attend discrimination and anaphylaxis training. |
Employee with intellectual disability bullied at work
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Work |
Outcome |
Staff training in discrimination Statement of service provided Financial donation to charity |
Year | 2018–2019 |
Summary He alleged that his supervisor constantly bullied him because of his disability, including making him work in wet conditions for hours, refused him permission to speak with clients of the club, constantly questioned him about what he was doing and made derogatory comments about his ability to understand his duties. The complainant had been dismissed after he lost his temper because of the alleged treatment of his supervisor. The respondent denied allegations. An agreement was reached at conciliation that all staff would receive training in discrimination law, a statement of service was provided, and $1,500 was to be paid by the individual respondent to a disability support organisation located in the complainant’s neighbourhood. |
Child with ADHD and ASD not permitted to attend school camp
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Education |
Outcome |
Financial compensation Waiver of school fees Review of policies and procedures |
Compensation | $3,720.00 |
Year | 2018–2019 |
Summary He attended a private school and alleged (through his mother as his agent) that the acting principal would not permit him to attend a school camp due to violent outbursts and ASD. The school informed the mother the complainant needed to be in another educational facility as they did not believe he could be in mainstream schooling. No written response was provided. During the conference the school representatives explained the reasons for the steps taken and provided details as to the concerns they had around safety, including the complainant’s behaviour towards other students and staff. However, they did express regret over the way the matter was handled, and the school acknowledged communication could have been better. The school assured the complainant’s mother that they had already taken steps to improve communication and one of the school representatives that attended the conference was a new employee hired to address problems such as this in the future. The complaint was resolved by conciliation by agreement on the terms of $3,000 general damages; $720 special damages for medical expenses; waiver of all school fees owed; and that policies and procedures would be reviewed, revised and implemented - specifically, improved communication with parents/guardians, improved management of students with challenging behaviours and improved complaint management. |
Legally blind resident provided with a safe path of travel
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area |
Supplying goods or services Administration of State laws or programs |
Outcome | Work undertaken to address accessibility and safety issues |
Year | 2018–2019 |
Summary The respondent local council lodged a detailed written response stating they had complied with regulatory standards but were also looking into in the complainant’s concerns and further works were planned. Detailed diagrams and photos of different sites were provided. Pre-conference communication with the complainant and the council representative led to productive conference discussions involving an expert in regulatory requirements and the council representative responsible for works of this nature. Post-conference negotiations led to significant council works that addressed every safety concern, and the matter settled by conciliation agreement on the basis that the complainant was satisfied with discussions at conference and the council works that had been completed addressing all of her concerns. |
Church excluded and restricted congregation member with disability
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute |
Impairment Association |
Area | Supplying goods or services |
Outcome |
Financial compensation Input to develop a Disability Access and Action Plan Disability support plan to facilitate return to the church |
Compensation | A small sum as general damages |
Year | 2018–2019 |
Summary The mother had been an active member of a church congregation since 1996, and had been bringing her son to church with her since he was around 6 years old. The mother alleged that the church, its clergy and various members of the congregation treated her and her son in the following discriminatory ways from 2006 to December 2018:
The mother and son eventually left the congregation and attended another church, but the complaint alleged that discrimination continued. After a conciliation conference and subsequent negotiations, the parties reached an agreement that, amongst other things, provided for:
|
Bank provides sit-down transaction facilities
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Supplying goods or services |
Outcome |
Face-to-face apology Adequate facilities to be provided Training for staff in discrimination Facilities to be made accessible |
Year | 2018–2019 |
Summary |
Employee on light duties terminated
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Work |
Outcome | Financial compensation |
Year | 2017–2018 |
Summary After his illness, he returned to work on light duties as he was unable to stand for more than 20 or 30 minutes, and he was unable to hold power tools for long periods of time. He was able to perform light duties for 20 months. He then took 3 months of sick leave, and when he returned his employer requested a medical certificate addressing his capacity to perform his duties. The complainant provided a medical certificate clearing him to return to work on light duties. The employer terminated his employment. The respondents argued they were unable to accommodate the complainant’s light duties on an ongoing basis. The complainant believed that they could continue to accommodate him, as he had performed meaningful light duties for 20 months, and his employer had been able to accommodate him for the time. The complaint was settled by payment of financial compensation to the complainant. |
HIV-positive patient denied hair transplant procedure
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Supplying goods or services |
Outcome |
Financial compensation Written apology Donation to charity Staff training about blood borne viruses Develop new policies and procedures |
Year | 2017–2018 |
Summary At conciliation, the respondents explained they did not provide the service due to safety concerns. The complaint was resolved on the basis that the respondents agreed to: provide a written apology to the complainant; paid financial compensation to him; made donations to a legal centre and a not-for-profit support agency of an agreed amount; arranged expert training for their staff about blood borne viruses (such as HIV), including risks of exposure and transmission; and they would receive guidance and assistance from relevant agencies to review and develop their procedures and policy regarding the treatment of patients with the same, or similar, impairment to the complainant. |
Employee on return to work plan denied opportunity for advancement
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Work |
Outcome |
Financial compensation Return to substantive position |
Year | 2017–2018 |
Summary While the complainant was waiting to return to work, she applied for a higher position and was told by the respondent that she would not be interviewed for the position, because she was on a return to work plan and that she was not available at the time of the short listing. The matter was resolved by paying financial compensation to the complainant and a return to her substantive position. |
Support and assistance for remote patient
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Administration of State laws or programs |
Outcome |
Approved accommodation expenses Assigned a Nurse Navigator to assist complainant Arranged tele-health appointments to reduce need to travel |
Year | 2016–2017 |
Summary At the conciliation conference, the respondents agreed to approve accommodation expenses for the complainant to attend her appointments in Brisbane on an annual basis. The respondents also appointed a |
Termination during sick leave
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Work |
Outcome | Financial compensation |
Year | 2016–2017 |
Summary The respondents agreed to pay financial compensation to the complainant. |
Denial of opportunities for employee on return to work plan
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Work |
Outcome |
Return to substantive position Financial compensation |
Year | 2016–2017 |
Summary At the conciliation conference, the respondents agreed to return the complainant to her substantive position and to pay her financial compensation. |
Assistance dog in restaurant
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Supplying goods or services |
Outcome | Policy change / change in practice |
Year | 2015 |
Summary At the conciliation conference, the person from the restaurant said she remembered saying that dogs were not allowed, however she did not realise the man was referring to an assistance dog. She said she was aware that assistance dogs are allowed by law and would welcome this man back but that the dog could be left just outside the restaurant. The conciliator explained that a person who relies on an assistance dog has rights under the Guide, Hearing and Assistance Dog Act 2009 and the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 to take the dog into public places, including restaurants. It is an offence for the restaurant to refuse entry to a person because they have an assistance dog, if the dog is wearing an identifying coat and the person has their identity card. The complaint process helped the restaurant to better understand their obligations in relation to guide, hearing and assistance dogs, and that they would not be in breach of their food licence issued by the local council for allowing assistance dogs in the dining room of the restaurant. They agreed that in future they would clarify with a person making a booking or coming to the restaurant with a dog whether it was a guide, hearing or assistance dog. |
Kindergarten student with ADHD
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Supplying goods or services |
Outcome | Apology |
Year | 2014 |
Summary The teacher asked her to collect her son two hours early, and also spoke to the principal of the school the boy was to attend the following year about his additional needs. In conciliation the mother described how the teacher's actions made her feel that her son was being The teacher apologised for speaking to the principal without the mother's prior consent and explained how the information she had provided would assist the boy transition to primary school. Both the mother and the teacher acknowledged responsibility for a breakdown in communication between them. The mother was satisfied with the teacher's explanation. The kindergarten agreed to adjust its policies and procedures, to undertake further training in special needs, and to refund part of the kindergarten fees. |
HIV status and work as a chef
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Work |
Outcome |
Acknowledgment Compensation |
Compensation | Amount not disclosed |
Year | 2014 |
Summary The owners of the small business restaurant had been advised by their insurance broker that their insurance may be cancelled if they continued to employ the apprentice. At the conciliation conference the apprentice chef explained that a large volume of blood would be required to pass on the condition, and that universal hygiene measures meant there was an extremely low risk of this occurring. He also told them he was now working in another restaurant where the employer was aware of his HIV status. The restaurant owners acknowledged they should have investigated the risks and sought advice elsewhere. They agreed to pay compensation to the apprentice for hurt and humiliation as well as one month's loss of income. |
Communication with Deaf community
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area |
Administration of state laws or programs Supplying goods or services |
Outcome |
Policy change / change in practice Undertaking to consult with affected community |
Year | 2012–2013 |
Summary |
Modifications to rental accommodation
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Accommodation |
Outcome |
Apology Compensation Training |
Compensation | Amount not disclosed |
Year | 2012–2013 |
Summary At the conciliation conference the housing association argued unjustifiable hardship as all income for the maintenance of its properties is raised through rental income, but conceded that they did not get quotes for the cost of the modifications. They apologised for not communicating with the complainant in a timely and effective way and agreed to pay compensation and have their staff trained to better understand how to manage this situation in future. |
Wheelchair access to aircraft
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Supplying goods or services (access to transport) |
Outcome | Policy change / change in practice |
Year | 2012–2013 |
Summary The airline agreed to implement new policies and processes so that customers with wheelchairs are provided with better access into the aircraft and more reliable access to their wheelchair upon arrival at their destination. The company also doubled the number ofwide bodiedwheelchairs that are able to be used by clients at the airport. |
Work injury restricts job capacity
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Work |
Outcome | Job offer |
Year | 2012–2013 |
Summary |
Time off work to recover from medical procedure
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Work |
Outcome |
Apology Compensation Statement of service |
Compensation | Amount not disclosed |
Year | 2012 |
Summary |
Termination due to uncertainty surrounding medical condition
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Work |
Outcome |
Compensation Statement of regret |
Compensation | Amount not disclosed |
Year | 2010 |
Summary Afterwards, the woman received a letter from her employer saying that due to the economic downturn, they could only offer her casual employment. She was asked to notify them within seven days of whether she would accept the casual position or resign. The woman wrote to the employer saying that she was too stressed and upset to provide an answer within the timeframe, and sought more information on a number of matters before she could make a decision. On the day she was originally asked to make the decision, the employer terminated her employment, and said that it was due to the uncertainty surrounding her medical condition. The conciliated outcomes included compensation and a statement of regret from the employer. |
Dismissal due to medical condition, not economic downturn
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Work |
Outcome |
Apology Compensation Anti-discrimination training undertaken |
Compensation | Amount not disclosed |
Year | 2010 |
Summary Initially, the new bosses gave him time off without pay so he could recover. After treatment, the man contacted the new owner and advised that he was ready to return to work after two weeks. He was then told that there was no work for him, due to the economic downturn. The complainant initially accepted this but approached the ADCQ after receiving a separation certificate stating that he was terminated due to |
Wheelchair access lost with redevelopment
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Supplying goods or services (access to premises) |
Outcome |
Policy change / change in practice Policy change / change in practice (external customers) Undertaking to report progress |
Summary The developers and the council responsible for the redevelopment highlighted difficulties in implementing and maintaining an accessible route at that location. As the road had been widened, the footpath area was too narrow for a ramp, and a lift would have been expensive to install and maintain, and would also be subject to vandalism. A further difficulty was that the area was heritage listed. Ultimately the complainant accepted the difficulties in relation to the specific site, while the respondents accepted his concerns in relation to the process and outcome of the redevelopment. The complaint was resolved on the basis that the developer:
The Council agreed to:
|
Access at theme park
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Supplying goods or services |
Outcome |
Undertaking to consult with affected community Policy change / change in practice Other opportunity provided |
Summary Through conciliation, an agreement was reached. It involved the company agreeing to seek advice from a disability advocate regarding improved access to the park generally, as well as to certain attractions. Further, the complainant was invited by the company to speak directly with staff of the park about her experiences in a wheelchair, to increase their awareness of disability issues. It was agreed that the complainant and her family be provided with accommodation whilst attending these sessions. As a gesture of goodwill the company also offered a twelve month pass to the complainant and her family. |
Medical examination to assess fitness for job
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Work |
Outcome |
Apology Policy change / change in practice Other |
Year | 2000–2001 |
Summary The respondent denied him employment on the basis of his impairment stating that the position was extremely stressful and there was potential risk to clients and fellow workers. At conciliation it was agreed that procedures were not followed, his physician should have been consulted and the notification form letter was cursory. The matter settled with an agreement to reassess the application after examination by a specialist, an apology and a commitment to change the wording of the rejection letter. |
Surgery refused because of HIV status
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Supplying goods or services |
Outcome |
Compensation Policy change / change in practice Training |
Compensation | Amount not disclosed |
Year | 1999–2000 |
SummaryA man alleged he was discriminated against on the basis of his impairment. He said his HIV+ status was the reason he was refused major surgery. After a delay of several months he was able to arrange for an operation in another State, but argued that the delay had permanently affected the level of benefit he gained from the operation. The complainant said the hospital's inefficient administrative system and the losing of a medical record had further aggravated his situation. The hospital said that the situation was more complicated than the complainant alleged. They acknowledged, however, deficiencies in their administrative system and that they needed more understanding of HIV in the area of major surgery. Since being alerted to the complaint, the hospital had taken steps to improve their patient tracking systems and their administrative processes. In resolving the complaint the hospital undertook to liaise with other medical services and community agencies with expertise regarding HIV and to provide more information about patients rights in these areas. The complainant also received financial compensation. |
Wheelchair ramps to be made safe
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Supplying goods or services |
Outcome |
Access to premises provided Policy change / change in practice |
Year | 1999–2000 |
Summary The Commission dealt with a number of complaints from people in wheelchairs challenging the safety of ramps in public areas. Each complainant also alleged that the ramps did not comply with Australian Standards for disability access. Respondents to these matters asserted that the ramps conformed to the Building Code of Australia and that wheelchair access was well catered for. These matters were conciliated after negotiations between the parties with the respondents undertaking to put in place structures complying with the relevant Australian Standards. In some matters this followed the advice provided by Access Consultants. |
Public library access provided
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Supplying goods or services |
Outcome | Access to premises provided |
Year | 1998–1999 |
Summary Because of the public nature of council meetings there was extensive local media interest. Through conciliation the city council agreed to install a lift. Both parties were very co-operative and satisfied with the outcome. The child's foster mother was delighted and wrote |
Assumed that gay worker was HIV positive
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment (presumed) |
Area | Work |
Outcome |
Compensation Other |
Compensation | Amount not disclosed |
Year | 1998–1999 |
Summary |
Raising medical condition created impression of discrimination
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Work |
Outcome |
Apology Policy change / change in practice Other opportunity provided |
Summary A woman alleged that she was not interviewed for a position and was told by the supervisor that it was because she had a medical condition. The company and the individual respondent denied the allegations stating that she was not given an interview because she did not meet the requirements of the position. At conciliation the respondent stated that in a discussion with the complainant about her not being successful in the application, her medical condition was discussed. An apology was given to the complainant for any false impression given to her that her medical condition had been taken into account. The company agreed to the following:
|
Access to council facilities improved
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Impairment |
Area | Supplying goods or services |
Outcome |
Access to premises provided Policy change / change in practice |
Year | 1998 |
Summary HUGI Action Group complained of inequity in access to shops, business houses, Council owned or supported buildings and facilities. The outcomes achieved through the conciliation process included significant improvements to buildings and facilities and general principles the Redland Shire Council have now incorporated into their policies in dealing with equity of access in the civic design process. Although the conciliation and negotiation process took two years, the parties acknowledge that the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 was the most effective vehicle for change. The parties agreed to make the outcome of the complaint public. |