Impairment case studies

The impairment case summaries are grouped into two categories: court and tribunal decisions, and 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
A man who relies on a wheelchair claimed discrimination by the Brisbane City Council (the BCC) because buses are not fitted with active restraint systems for wheelchairs. The issue for determination was whether the BCC has contravened the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (the Act) by refusing to install active wheelchair restraints in its buses to minimise the chances of injury due to wheelchairs moving during travel on buses. The parties agreed that the central issue was whether it has been reasonable for the BCC to not have installed active restraints for mobility devices on its 1,257 buses. The BCC claimed that the installation of restraints across the bus fleet would impose unjustifiable hardship, which is a defence under the Act. No seat belt or active restraint system is provided for any passenger of any of the buses.

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)

Back to top

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
Association with / relation to person with impairment

Area Accommodation
Outcome Complaint upheld
Compensation

$8,000 for child
$5,000 for mother

Year 2022

Summary
A child who relies on an assistance dog and his mother succeeded in a complaint of impairment discrimination against the managers of an apartment complex.

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)

Back to top

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
A  man who relied on an assistance dog was prohibited from bringing the dog inside the pub with him, and on one occasion he was banned from the pub for one month.  The man was required to either leave the dog outside when he entered the pub or sit outside with the dog.

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)

 

Back to top

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
At the suggestion of her doctor, a woman who had been diagnosed with chronic depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder obtained an assistance dog to help alleviate her symptoms of depression and anxiety. The dog was a cavoodle named Muffin .

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)

Back to top

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
A residential care officer developed a chronic kidney disease and had to undertake a type of dialysis twice during a 12-hour shift and once during an 8-hour shift. At the time, the officer worked three 12-hour day shifts, three 12-hour night shifts, and one 8-hour variable shift each fortnight. He conducted the dialysis during his breaks.

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 circumstances for the purpose of assessing direct discrimination.

The tribunal found it was less favourable treatment of the officer to:

  • direct him not to perform the dialysis treatment in his crib break, when he was just as responsive as another RCO who was otherwise occupied in their crib break; and
  • decide not to continue to backfill in circumstances where it completely eliminated any risks to service users and cost less than employing the officer in a supernumerary administrative role; and
  • not pay his projected RCO roster, including shift penalties, when he was transferred to alternative duties.

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:

  • $10,000.00 (general damages)
  • $11,372.00 (loss of salary)
  • $  1,043.30 (lost recreational leave)
  • $  3,546.75 (two weeks leave without pay)
  • $  7,944.11 (lost penalty payments)
Vale v State of Queensland & Ors [2019] QCAT 290 (19 September 2019)

Back to top

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
A man with a hearing impairment claimed his internet service provider (ISP) discriminated against him by requiring him to contact them by telephone to cancel the service and to discuss a debt, and in referring a debt to a debt recovery agency.

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)

Back to top

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
A woman claimed the Council discriminated against her because of her wrist injury when it did not confirm her employment at the end of a probationary period. The Council claimed the reason for not continuing the employment was that the woman had not been honest in her response to an interview question.

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 No . Although she had a past injury to her wrist that had been exacerbated by excessive typing in her previous job, she genuinely thought she could perform all the duties of the position.

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)

Back to top

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
A woman who does not have a left hand, wrist or forearm, complained about the way she was treated at three Gold Coast theme parks in December 2013.

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, Has this been checked? . The tribunal found the ride attendant had been insensitive and rude when seeking to clarify whether the woman had been approved to go on the ride, and this was less favourable treatment of her compared to the treatment of people without her impairment. The tribunal awarded $500 damages.

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 assessed several times instead of safety-check . The tribunal found the term assessed was factual, short and not inherently nasty. It said the woman did not suffer any unfavourable treatment and there was no discrimination of her.

Kleinig v Village Roadshow Theme Parks Pty Ltd [2015] QCAT 330 (6 August 2015)

Back to top

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
A man who uses a wheelchair and has a paralysed hand was required to provide fingerprints using a scanning device designed for people who can stand. It caused him considerable effort to lift up each arm to the scanning plate, and keep his arm in that position while the prints were being taken. The operator repeatedly opened the curled fingers of his paralysed hand to try, unsuccessfully, to scan for fingerprints.

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)

Back to top

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
A temporary administrative worker at a prison was required to undertake Suicide Prevention Awareness training, despite having earlier been excused from a scheduled session of the training because of her medical condition of depression with a history of attempted suicides. The worker experienced difficulty undertaking the training on-line on her own, and had to take breaks during which she sought assistance from the employer's equity officer.

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)

Back to top

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
The applicant YB is a year 12 high school student and complained that he was subject to unlawful discrimination in the provision of educational services to him at the high school which he attends.

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:
in order for a student to obtain the educational benefits offered by the respondent at M State High School and to prepare fully for assessment in Years 9 and 10, the student was required to read and absorb course materials printed in 8 or 10 point font, read and absorb course materials printed on white paper, read and absorb examination papers printed in 8 or 10 point font, undertake assessment, including examination assessment, within the strict universal timeframes set down by M State High School and complete their studies without any assistance from learning support teachers.

The Tribunal found that the school did not impose the terms as argued. It found that the school:

  • required YB's teachers to provide him with course, assessment, and examination materials in 14 point font, and later to be printed on coloured paper; (It noted that there were isolated occasions where this requirement may not have been followed.)
  • required the heads of departments and YB's teachers to permit him to have extensions of time in which to complete assessment items including examinations;
  • provided YB with assistance from learning support teachers and with additional learning support from the deputy principal;
  • provided other accommodations to YB including a laptop computer and uploading course materials to it.

The complaint was not made out and was dismissed.

With regard to costs, Member Endicott said:
In view of the fact that YB was a minor for all but the hearing stage of the claim and his claim was brought and maintained by his agent, JB, until the start of the hearing, the Tribunal is unlikely to be persuaded that in the interests of justice an award of costs should be made.

YB v State of Queensland [2010] QCAT 395 (16 August 2010)

Back to top

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 ADTQ dismissed a complaint by a worker who claimed she had been unlawfully discriminated against on the basis of impairment when her employment was terminated after suffering an injury at a meatworks where she was employed for one day and one hour.

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)

Back to top

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
A man with a disability who used a motorised scooter made a complaint after being unable to access the premises of a restaurant, as it had an outward-opening door.

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.

Back to top

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
The complainant, a man with a disability, wanted to book tickets to a sporting match and required accessible seating. General seats were available for purchase online, but the complainant was unable to view accessible seating or book tickets for accessible seating online, and had to fill out an online form and wait for a call back. After multiple phone calls and emails to follow up his request, he was finally able to speak to the ticket seller and buy a ticket 11 days later.

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.

Back to top

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
This complaint was made during a mandatory mask wearing period in Queensland. The complainant alleged her employer sent her home from work for refusing to wear a mask for medical reasons. The complainant said she could not comply with the term of wearing a mask for medical reasons but that did not want to disclose her medical condition to protect her privacy.

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.

Back to top

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
A family was moving back to Queensland after living overseas, and requested to quarantine at home because their 8-year-old daughter has ASD, ADHD, anxiety, and obsessive behaviours. Because of her disability she is prone to meltdowns and has food aversions. The request for exemption from hotel quarantine was rejected.

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.

Back to top

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
A man had an acquired brain injury, an inoperable brain aneurysm, and used a wheelchair. After a long recovery and more than 3 years of treatment in hospital and in rehabilitation facilities, he had become independent and started living at home, with a partner. One night the man accidentally fell out of his wheelchair, knocking his face on a tiled floor and becoming trapped under the 164kg chair. While in the ambulance he requested a bottle so that he could urinate. Due to his dexterity challenges and the bumps on the road, he was splashed by some of the urine.

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 my health record but says he was told that it’s too late at night to access that .

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.

Back to top

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
A 73-year-old woman with lung cancer had been approved for social housing, but had only been offered properties that she considered to be unsuitable for her mobility needs. She also needed a yard area for her dog. At the time she was facing homelessness, as her private rental was up for sale and she had been unsuccessful in applying for around 30 properties in the private market. The social housing provider expressed empathy for her circumstances but explained that demand for housing exceeded the supply, and that allocations had to be made depending on the number of available properties and the needs of those in queue for social housing.

Through the conciliation process, the social housing provider offered the woman a suitable one-bedroom apartment with an enclosed courtyard which was accepted.

Back to top

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
A woman who had mobility issues made a complaint about the limited number of accessible parks at a bus terminal, and being issued with a number of fines for parking in other places. She said that on two occasions the bus driver refused to engage the ramp, requiring her to struggle up and down the bus stairs.

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.

Back to top

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
The complainant, who was in her 60s, made a complaint against her employer, a childcare service provider, and the new director, for impairment and race discrimination. She had been employed by the childcare centre for 12 years. She had been initially employed as a childcare educator caring for children. After an injury approximately 5 years previously, her duties had been adjusted to partly administrative work and partly caring duties to accommodate her injury.

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.

Back to top

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
A mother lodged a complaint on behalf of her 7-year-old son who attends a state school and has a disability which manifests as anxiety, sensory and behavioural problems. The school became concerned about his escalating behaviour and that some of his behaviours could increase the risk of transmission during the COVID-19 pandemic, and issued a notice of suspension as a result. The child’s mother communicated that her son felt confused, upset, anxious, and unwanted. Many of the details were in dispute, and communication between the family and the school had broken down.

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.

Back to top

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
A woman in hotel quarantine after travelling interstate complained that she was given only 5 fresh air breaks in 14 days. She felt that the communication was poor – the police would say that fresh air breaks were Queensland Health’s responsibility, and the hotel reception said it was the Queensland Police Service’s role. During her stay her mental health deteriorated. Her GP provided a report to support her request to isolate at home. The woman rang the Acute Mental Health Team but felt that her concerns were dismissed.

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.

Back to top

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 complainant’s three-year-old son had type 1 diabetes. She was told that he could not attend childcare as they did not have staff appropriately trained to manage his condition. Approximately six months later, the childcare director was trained in managing type 1 diabetes and the complainant was then permitted to enrol her son at the centre. The complainant complained about her son’s 6-month exclusion from childcare during which she had not been able to seek employment.

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.

Back to top

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
In 2018, the complainant applied for life, total and permanent disability (TPD) and income protection insurance through the trustee for her superannuation fund. She disclosed in her application that she had a history of depression and anxiety, but was not currently on any medication and was self-managing with occasional psychologist visits. She further disclosed an abnormal blood test result as a result of a bleeding episode post-surgery in 2012.

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 due to a history of mild urge incontinence and history of mild bleeding disorder .

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.

Back to top

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 complainant has physical disability, psychiatric disability and has an accredited assistant dog. They went for a tour of a venue that was open to public. On arrival they were told that the assistant dog would not be let in. The complainant was not able to complete the tour and left.

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.

Back to top

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 complainant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). She applied for rental accommodation with the respondent at a unit complex. The respondent required clauses in her lease that she must provide all relevant medical information in relation to her current medical condition, that she consent and agree to be examined and assessed by their medical practitioner, that she follow any certificate provided by the practitioner, and that the manager could enter her unit at any time without warning.

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.

Back to top

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 complainant is in a wheelchair and was unable to trigger the swipe lock for the door into her apartment complex and then manoeuvre her wheelchair to open and close the heavy door. She had asked the Body Corporate to install an automatic door opening mechanism but they did not believe this was an appropriate way to spend their money.

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.

Back to top

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 complainant was refused service to have his nipple pierced after disclosing that he was HIV positive. The respondent company also asked questions about whether the client was HIV positive on a form the complainant had been asked to complete.

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 in occupational exposure and discrimination principles relating to HIV  was agreed. The questions regarding HIV were removed from the consent form.

Back to top

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 complainant has a life threatening allergy to latex that included the transfer of airborne particles. The respondent childcare centre where the complainant’s children were enrolled had been informed of the complainant’s condition and had agreed to an allergy management plan that included not using latex balloons.

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.

Back to top

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
A man with an intellectual disability was employed at a recreational club.

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.

Back to top

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
The 13-year-old complainant had ADHD and ASD Level 1, the characteristics of which included impulsivity and violent outbursts that could be minimised by medication. The complainant had attended mainstream schooling and school camps for his entire schooling with minimal problems.

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.

Back to top

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 complainant was legally blind and complained that there was inadequate lighting, signs, crossings and tactile indicators in the high traffic area where she resided. This meant she did not have access to a clear and safe path of travel.

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.

Back to top

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
This was a joint complaint made by a mother on behalf of herself and her adult (18 year old) son against a church, its clergy and certain members of the congregation. The mother alleged that her son had ten separate and significant disabilities including severe physical, sensory (hearing and vision) and intellectual impairments. He used a wheelchair and required oxygen, and his intellectual impairments affected his behaviour.

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:

  • Writing a letter to the mother on behalf of the clergy and congregation suggesting that the son’s behaviour was disrespectful and stating that the church is so pleasant and peaceful when you’re not there ;
  • Excluding the mother and son from church activities and placing restrictions on where they should sit in the church, effectively excluding them from the main area where most the congregation sat;
  • Unfairly blaming the son and/or falsely accusing him of certain behaviour which either didn’t occur, or was behaviour characteristic of one or more of his impairments;
  • After an incident in which the son’s oxygen trolley accidentally fell and knocked a bystander (who was unharmed), imposing restrictions on the use of his oxygen, allegedly for workplace health and safety reasons.

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:

  • The son’s input into a working group to develop a Disability Access and Action Plan for the respondent;
  • A meeting between the mother, a senior member of the clergy and an independent consultant with expertise in the inclusion of people with disabilities, workplace health and safety and risk management, to develop a disability support plan to facilitate the son’s return to regular worship at the church; and
  • Payment of a small sum as general damages.

Back to top

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
The complainant had a disability that caused her to experience excruciating pain when walking or standing. She complained that she was not provided adequate seating when using her local bank, so she could not effectively do her banking.

The complaint was resolved through early negotiations on the basis that the bank would provide adequate sit down facilities at its local branches, appropriate security for those facilities, additional customer service training for its staff including in anti-discrimination and awareness, and a meeting between the complainant and the bank executives to ensure that the banking facilities were accessible for the complainant, and to deliver face to face verbal apology.

Back to top

Employee on light duties terminated

Type of outcome Conciliation
Contravention Discrimination
Attribute Impairment
Area Work
Outcome Financial compensation
Year 2017–2018

Summary
The complainant worked as a maintenance shift worker at a factory. He received a vaccination at work. He was subsequently diagnosed with vaccination-related illness, coupled with severe allergic reaction to the vaccine.

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.

Back to top

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
The complainant, who was HIV positive, sought a direct hair implantation procedure from the respondent. The complainant’s initial treatment was postponed, but he was later told that the clinic did not provide hair implantation service to HIV-positive patients, due to the risk of needle stick injury.

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.

Back to top

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
The complainant was in the process of negotiating a return to work plan, and provided the employer with a medical clearance. However, the employer directed the worker to attend another examination before they could return to work.

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.

Back to top

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
The complainant was a resident in a regional town and suffered from a life-threatening illness requiring regular medical treatment in Brisbane. She was refused accommodation assistance under a patient subsidy scheme on the basis that she was able to travel to Brisbane and return in one day. However, due to her condition and her medication, she was too ill and tired to complete the return trip in one day, as this would make her condition worse.

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 Nurse Navigator to assist the complainant with her needs in the health care system, and agree to assist the complainant in arranging tele-health appointments so that her need to travel to Brisbane was reduced.

Back to top

Termination during sick leave

Type of outcome Conciliation
Contravention Discrimination
Attribute Impairment
Area Work
Outcome Financial compensation
Year 2016–2017

Summary
The complainant was unable to attend work for two weeks due to a temporary medical condition. While absent, the complainant’s employment was terminated and they were given no opportunity to respond to the termination.

The respondents agreed to pay financial compensation to the complainant.

Back to top

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
The complainant was away from work due to an injury and was negotiating a return to work plan with her employer. Prior to her return to work, the complainant applied for a higher role with her employer, but was told by the respondent that she would not be interviewed for the position because she was on a return to work plan and would be away at the time of the short listing.

At the conciliation conference, the respondents agreed to return the complainant to her substantive position and to pay her financial compensation.

Back to top

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
A man who relies on an assistance dog telephoned a restaurant to make a reservation, and said he would be bringing his assistance dog. He was told over the phone that dogs were not allowed in the restaurant.

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.

Back to top

Kindergarten student with ADHD

Type of outcome Conciliation
Contravention Discrimination
Attribute Impairment
Area Supplying goods or services
Outcome 

Apology
Complainant satisfied with response / information provided
Policy change / change in practice
Refund (partial) of fees

Year 2014

Summary
The mother of a five-year-old boy with ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) complained that her son was not being fully included in the kindergarten program.

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 singled out because of his impairment. The teacher said she asked the mother to collect the boy early because he had difficulty settling at nap time and he became upset when other children were collected before him.

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.

Back to top

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
When an apprentice chef was diagnosed as HIV positive he informed his employer, and the next day he was dismissed.

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.

Back to top

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
A deaf woman complained that a government agency failed to engage interpreters when they responded to an emergency involving six profoundly deaf adults. Because the complainant could neither read nor write, as well as being deaf, she needed a deaf relay interpreter as well as Auslan interpreters.

At conference, the government agency agreed to work with the Deaf community to ensure more effective communication in future.

Back to top

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
The complainant had impairments which required her to use a wheelchair. She approached a housing association which offered her a unit for rent. The unit needed modifications to make it safe, which a consultant reported to the housing association. The complainant agreed to move in while the modifications were being carried out and started to sell her possessions in anticipation of moving to a smaller residence. The housing association then decided that the modifications were too expensive and rented the unit to a person who did not require them.

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.

Back to top

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
A complainant who used a wheel chair complained that he was not provided with adequate access to a wheelchair to board and disembark the aeroplane.

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 of wide bodied wheelchairs that are able to be used by clients at the airport.

Back to top

Work injury restricts job capacity

Type of outcome Conciliation
Contravention Discrimination
Attribute Impairment
Area Work
Outcome

Job offer

Year 2012–2013

Summary
The complainant was a long time employee of a dental clinic, with a great work history. She was injured at work which resulted in many restrictions in her ability to perform her job. She was stood down without pay pending a medical examination and was possibly facing ill health retirement.

At conciliation the clinic explained they had looked for other positions for her, but there were none. An agreement was reached through conciliation where the clinic agreed to look for possible positions outside the clinic for a period of eight weeks. Within two days of the conference a suitable position was found for the complainant in a call centre related to the dental clinic. The complainant happily accepted the job.

Back to top

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
A complaint was made to ADCQ by an employee who claimed that her employment was terminated because she required a medical procedure and would need time off work to recover.

Through the ADCQ conciliation process the complaint was successfully resolved. The complainant received an apology from their former employer, financial compensation and a supported statement of service. The complaint was resolved within three weeks of lodgement.

Back to top

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
A dental nurse who worked as a full-time permanent employee with a dental practice for eight years developed a condition that required regular medical appointments. The woman notified her employer and was absent from work on a number of occasions to receive treatment.

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.

Back to top

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
A man employed by a tyre service organisation that had recently changed hands had a pre-existing injury that was made known to the new owners.

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 medical reasons . He also found out that someone else had been employed in his position.

The employers were not able to show that his termination was due to the economic downturn, and said they were unaware that their reasons for terminating him may have breached Queensland laws. The conciliated outcomes included compensation, an apology and an agreement for one of the owners to attend an ADCQ education session and pass the information on to their staff.

Back to top

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
A man alleged discrimination on the basis of impairment when he found he no longer had access to a ramp for his wheelchair. The ramp had been replaced with a staircase as part of a redevelopment. As a result, he could no longer use the thoroughfare and had to go a considerable distance to use the alternative, accessible route. He said that removal of the ramp had occurred without public consultation and was unacceptable. He proposed that the steps be replaced with a ramp or lift.

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:

  • paid $20,000 to a disability advocate organisation, to develop disability awareness resources
  • will take specific steps to ensure their projects comply with relevant Australian Standards relating to disability access
  • will promote the issue of disability access within relevant industry groups
  • will report to the complainant on an annual basis for 3 years about the progress in implementing these terms.

The Council agreed to:

  • involve the complainant in addressing other access concerns
  • continue to implement its non discriminatory access code
  • review the code and its implementation and submit a summary of the review to the complainant
  • provide the complainant an opportunity to input into proposed mobility studies.

Back to top

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
Improved disability access to rides and attractions at a theme park was sought by a complainant in a wheelchair. In addition, concerns were raised regarding the treatment she received from certain staff of the park, which she believed was a result of her impairment.

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.

Back to top

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 complainant applied for an emergency service communication room position. He had served previously in a similar position for many years and was offered the position pending a medical examination. He disclosed on his application form that he suffered from post traumatic stress disorder.

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.

Back to top

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.

Back to top

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.

Back to top

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
Disability access to the children's section of a public library was sought on behalf of a child in a wheelchair. Approaches directly to the council by the girl's foster mother were unsuccessful and on the advice of a local advocacy group a complaint was lodged with the Commission.

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 ADCQ staff were very helpful and clear in the information I received.

Back to top

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
A man had worked for some time at a local supermarket without disclosing to his co-workers that he was gay. His colleagues eventually suspected that he was gay, after he had been seen out at a gay nightclub, and in an attempt to put an end to rumour, the man told his colleagues that he was gay. After declaring this, he was subjected to frequent jokes about his sexuality, rude remarks about the likelihood that he would pass on AIDS to his co-workers (even though he was not HIV positive),and even threatened that he would be bashed up in the car park.

The man lodged a complaint on the basis of sexuality and imputed impairment, against all of the co-workers who he alleged had discriminated against him, and the employer. None of the co-workers denied what was alleged against them, but the employer denied that it was vicariously liable, arguing that it had taken reasonable steps to prevent the discrimination. Following a conciliation conference, the respondent employer agreed to pay the complainant an undisclosed sum, and to provide specific monetary and other assistance to him to relocate interstate.

Back to top

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:
  • To develop a formal training and development program with the complainant in relation to the position for which she had applied, including an appropriate process for review of the program. The process was to include recognition of the complainant's current skills and abilities.
  • The company agreed to provide details of its formal recruitment procedures, including job selection, to the complainant and agreed that it would not victimise or disadvantage the complainant in any way as a result of the complaint.

Back to top

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
Equitable access for all residents and visitors to the Redland Shire Council has been considerably improved as a result of a conciliated agreement between the HUGI (Help Us Get In) Action Group and the Redland Shire Council.

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.

Back to top