Sex discrimination case studies

Summary: A male teacher was not allowed to wear an earring, while female staff were allowed to wear earrings. The man tried to resolve the issue with the school, and only complained to the Commission when negotiations failed. As the complaint progressed, things were said about the male teacher which were capable of affecting his reputation.

At the hearing, the school accepted that its refusal to allow the man to wear an earring was discriminatory on the ground of sex. The tribunal said the man had pursued his rights discreetly and respectfully, and he had complied with the requirement not to wear earrings at school.

While the school offered a private apology to the man, the tribunal said that in the absence of a wider acknowledgment by the school, the man would be asked questions when he returned wearing his earring, and it would not be fair to expect him to answer questions about the change in the school’s policy.

Helbig v Bundaberg Christian College Limited [2003] QADT 13  (15 May 2003)

Summary
The managing director of a sports club informed the complainant that her application for membership had been denied but refused to provide a reason. The complainant alleged her membership had been denied because she is female, and this was inferred because there were no women in the club. The complainant also alleged her membership was denied because she was in a relationship with someone who had been expelled from the same club. The complainant alleged there could be no other reason for the denial of her membership application as she was proficient in the sport.

The respondent argued that the company's rule book gave them authority to make decisions about membership and they were not obliged to provide an explanation for their decisions.

The complaint was resolved on terms including that the complainant’s application for membership would be accepted. The complainant could choose her support team, including her partner, and other specific terms were negotiated to allow the complainant to enjoy the full benefits of club membership.

Summary: A mother lodged a complaint on behalf of her 10-year-old daughter who attended a private co-educational school.

The girl’s mother said the school principal had removed long pants from the winter uniform choices for female students, and that the school provided no option for girls to wear shorts during the summer. She claimed that the lack of uniform choice for girls meant that girls were hampered in their physical activity, sometimes subject to comments about their underwear, and lacked warmth in winter. She claimed that boys were not subjected to the same restrictions with their uniform options.

The reason given by the principal for the change was to address concerns that the uniform standards at the school had ‘slipped recently’.

An anonymity order was granted by the Commission to preserve the privacy of the child in this matter. The face-to-face conciliation conference was held in a location removed from the school community to ensure privacy.

At the conciliation conference, the school agreed to: reintroduce pants into the girls’ winter uniform options; introduce shorts, and a girl-specific shirt, as a summer uniform option; and change the school uniform policy to reflect that girls were now able to wear pants or shorts on formal uniform days. The school principal undertook to make a statement in the school newsletter and at the school assembly supporting the changes. The uniform handbook would also include photos of girls wearing the new uniform options.

Summary: The complainant applied for a position as a tiler apprentice. She initially asked if they would accept a mature age person and the response was yes, as long as they were in good health and able to work on a construction site. The complainant then advised that she was very keen to apply. The respondent messaged back apologising, saying that they didn’t realise the complainant was asking for herself; the job is very physical and they felt it was too hard for females.

The respondents provided a letter of apology, retraction of the statement about the job being too hard for females, and they agreed to change their recruitment advertisements in the future. The respondents also agreed to undergo training in discrimination, and paid the complainant an amount of compensation.

Summary: The complainant was refused service at a barber shop because they only cut men’s hair. The respondents explained that their lease with the shopping centre where the shop was located only permitted them to cut men’s hair.

The complaint was resolved by both the barber shop managers and the shopping centre supervisor attending training in anti-discrimination.

Summary: The complainant worked in a male-dominated workplace. On numerous occasions, the respondent whispered comments to the complainant about a new female employee’s appearance including: Why does she wear those tight pants, what does she want? The respondent also commented about another new female appointment, I don’t have a problem with women…but they can’t work in the (redacted) industry because, you know, they have families and they have to give that priority, that’s what they do right? He also made comments about ironing being a woman’s job, and said the complainant was less of a pussy than that other pussy referring to another female.

When the complainant complained about the ongoing behaviour, she was told We have to accept some of this behaviour, given the industry and type of people we work with. The complainant resigned when her complaints were not addressed.

The respondent answered the complaint by saying the allegations had been investigated and not substantiated, however the complainant had not been interviewed during this investigation. The respondent also argued that the complainant had resigned due to not getting on with female colleagues, and not because of the behaviour she was alleging.

The complaint was resolved by payment of financial compensation to the complainant, and the individual respondent to complete anti-discrimination training.

Summary: The complainant, who was female, worked on a farm where the majority of employees were male. She was undertaking a training program alongside a male trainee and other male workers, and she had a male supervisor. Despite her previous experience using machinery, the supervisor would ask the male trainees to use the machinery and not ask her. She was given strict instructions that the male trainees were not given, and when she asked to gain experience using different equipment, her request was denied and instead it was offered to male workers. She was not offered shift work while male trainees and a worker with less experience than her were offered shift work. Her supervisor referred to her as a pair of tits when she refused his offer of help.

The parties reached an agreement prior to conference, including that the respondent provide the complainant with a written apology, the respondents undergo anti-discrimination training, and the respondents pay financial compensation to the complainant.

Summary: A woman approached a company to purchase some goods, and asked to make an appointment for a company representative to visit to do an in-home quote. The woman alleges that she was told it would be necessary for her husband to be present at the quote. She asked the company if the same question would be asked of a man in the same situation and said that she was not given an answer.

In response, the company said that its aim is to have all decision-makers present when quotes are given, so as to ensure that the correct information is relayed to all involved in the decision to purchase. The company stated that single or widowed customers are given the option of having a friend with them when a quote is being provided.

In conciliation, the company stated that they had not intended to act in a way that would be considered discriminatory. The company acknowledged the problems associated with advising married customers to have all decision-makers present, and giving an option to other customers (such as those who are single or widowed) to have a friend present. They acknowledged that this was less favourable treatment.

The company provided a written apology to the woman and agreed to develop and implement an anti-discrimination policy. This was done with the assistance of the Commission. After the conference the general manager of the company thanked the Commission for its assistance in bringing to their attention the potential problems with their previous practices. The company stated that they learned a great deal from being party to the complaint and that they will aim to avoid any further complaints being lodged in future.

Summary: A woman who had been employed in the office of a water transport business for a number of years, decided to seek employment with the company as deck-hand. She expressed long-term plans to gain a captain's licence.

She alleged she was made to feel unwelcome by her male co-workers who commented to her that the work would be too heavy and dirty for her. The male co-workers conceded, over time, that she was able to perform the duties of the position as well as they could.

Because of a downturn in business the company was forced to reduce work hours for deckhands. As a consequence, her rostered water-time was shortened resulting in loss of hours, loss of training, and career opportunities. She alleged her complaints to the company about unfair treatment by favouring male staff in the rostering times were ignored. In her view, the apparent necessity to reduce hours was unfairly distributed between her and her male colleagues. Her chosen career to aspire to captaincy, she intimated, was seriously jeopardised.

In conciliation, the respondents conceded that there were no female deckhands, acknowledged that the comments about work being 'too heavy and dirty for her' were made, and that this may have influenced the distribution of work.

The complaint was settled by conciliation with payment of $12,000 compensation, a written apology, and agreement that the company would undertake training on anti-discrimination.