Scenario #1: A woman with an intellectual disability was refused a cheque account because she worked in supported employment, and the local branch office felt that she would not be able to manage an account. We contacted the organisation's head office, and they agreed to grant the woman a cheque account and instruct the branch office about fair customer service.
Scenario #2: A disabled customer service officer has won a case of indirect disability discrimination after she was forced out of her position because she was not allowed to sit down while working.
The respondent had introduced a new retail concept to their Manly store, where the complainant had worked for 11 years. As part of the new working environment, workers were not permitted to be seated while serving customers or performing retail counter duties. Previously, stools had been provided for front line customer service officers to use when needed.
The complainant, who had osteoarthritis, heel spurs and varicose veins, was refused permission to sit, even intermittently, while serving at the retail counter. The respondent then redeployed her to the corporation's head office in Strawberry Hills, and sought to appoint her to an administrative position, rather than a retail position, at another location in Sydney. After failing to provide her with a position close to the Sydney's Northern Beaches where she lived, the respondent finally placed the complainant on extended sick leave.
The court held that the requirement to stand at the counter while working was unreasonable, and that the respondent suffered indirect disability discrimination in contravention of s 15 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). The court found there was an unreasonable belief by a manager that the respondent was "not the kind of person appropriate to be any longer serving on a post shop counter of Australia Post". Daghlian v Australian Postal Authority, Federal Court of Australia.
Scenario #3: The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has found that a casual worker was discriminated against after his employer discovered he had previously lodged a Workcover claim.
The company was ordered to pay $12,500 with VCAT finding the employer discriminated against the casual worker on the grounds of impairment after it had stopped offering work to him. The man had been working casually for the company when he went for an interview for a fulltime position. He was unsuccessful, then found his casual work petered out.
He alleged that in the interview, he'd told the panel he had a pre-existing injury. The Tribunal made no finding on that point. However it accepted evidence from an AMWU official that the HR manager had told inadvertently told her that the man had been put off because he had a previous WorkCover claim.
The Tribunal concluded that the substantial reason the Complainant's name was removed from the list of casual employees was because of his previous WorkCover claim.
Because of the discriminatory behaviour by the HR manager, VCAT ruled that PrixCar was vicariously liable and ordered $7,500 compensation for lost wages, and $5,000 for pain and suffering. Ronald Lester Dekretser and PrixCar Services Pty Ltd [2005]VCAT738
Scenario #4: The NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal has found that a NSW TAFE teacher with Hepatitis C was discriminated against when offered a redundancy payout.
The teacher was awarded $19,575 in compensation.
The Tribunal ruled that the teacher had received less favourable treatment than fellow workers partly "because of his fitness for work which, in turn, was inextricably linked to his disability".
The teacher had Hepatitis C, advanced liver disease and widespread arthritis. The Tribunal concluded that he was not offered the same redeployment and transfer opportunities as his colleagues who had also been made redundant. The Tribunal concluded his disability influenced TAFE management's decision not to offer him redundancy on similar favourable terms.
The written offer of redundancy did not include the retraining and transfer opportunities offered to other teachers. Management had also failed to make an "exhaustive survey of possible options" for his re-employment.
The full bench ordered TAFE to pay the teacher $16,075 in damages for economic loss (assessed at 30% of lost income based on an estimated 30% chance of redeployment denied) plus $3,500 in damages for non-economic loss (claimed for depression and unfair treatment). Nesci v TAFE Commission of NSW (No 2) [2005] NSWADT 183
- 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