Scenario #1: A man was told that he was dismissed from work because his employer wanted someone younger. After a conciliation conference, the employer acknowledged that the matter could have been handled better and gave the man an apology, a reference and financial compensation for the loss of his job.
Scenario #2: The Queensland Anti-Discrimination Tribunal has found that a café discriminated against a chef when he replied to an advertisement for someone to join a "young team".
The 46-year-old man said that when he rang the café, a director of the company that owned the café asked him how old he was. When he said he was over 21, she told him to drop his resume in to the café.
He said that when he went to the café he had a further conversation with the director in which he told her he was 46 and she said she only had a young team. She said she would set up a trial but he did not hear from her again.
At the hearing, the director said the advertisement used the words "young team" because some older workers did not like working with young people. She said she had terminated the original phone call because she did not like the man's attitude, and she denied asking him to drop in his resume or speaking to him in person at all. However the Tribunal found that her evidence was "evasive and unhelpful".
The Tribunal ordered $2,500 in damages for hurt and humiliation, but denied the man compensation for lost wages. Gardener v Norcott [2004] QADT 39
- Sex discrimination
- Pregnancy discrimination
- Age discrimination
- Multiple discrimination
- Race discrimination
- Homosexual discrimination
- Transgender discrimination
- Disability discrimination
- Carers discrimination
- Family Responsibilities discrimination
- Maternity Leave
- Back To Discrimination Main Page