Conciliation Register

The complainant’s daughter has chromosomal duplication (which affects her ability to handwrite), dyspraxia, inattentive attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, poor auditory memory and week short term memory. The complainant said her daughter’s school applied to the respondent education standards authority for adjustments to accommodate her disability during end of year 12 exams. The complainant claimed her daughter was granted small group supervision and rest breaks, but not use of a computer. She alleged this refusal was discriminatory because it would prevent her daughter from performing at her best.

The authority denied discriminating against the complainant’s daughter but indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved. On being provided with additional information about the complainant’s daughter’s disability and need for adjustment, the authority approved the use of a computer for the exams.

The complainant has anxiety, depression and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and has two assistance animals. He alleged the respondent government agency told him he could not bring his dogs to appointments and that the police may be called if he tried to do so.

The government agency claimed that, at the time of the appointment, the complainant was unable to provide any information to demonstrate that the dogs were assistance animals. The agency said the complainant was not denied a service, only asked to leave his dogs outside.

The complaint was resolved. The complainant provided additional information to demonstrate that his dogs are assistance animals and the government agency undertook that he could bring his assistance animals to future appointments.

The complainant’s son is an Australian citizen who was born outside Australia. She alleged he was unable to be considered for an internship with the respondent engineering company because he was born outside Australia.

The engineering company said it had obligations to its stakeholders that required strict recruitment processes. However, after considering the issues raised in the complaint, the company said that Australian citizenship would be enough to meet those obligations.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company would change its recruitment advertisement and process to no longer require applicants to be born in Australia.

The complainant experiences chronic lower-back joint pain, depression, and anxiety and at times uses a walking stick. She worked as a driver for the respondent government department and claimed that the department did not provide her with an accessible parking space, asked her not to use her walking stick and did not otherwise accommodate her disability. She also alleged colleagues bullied her because of her disability.

The department denied the allegations but indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation. 

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The department agreed to pay the complainant $18,000. The department also agreed to introduce a number of training and policy initiatives including the introduction of disability confidence training for management, a revision of existing training to include disability and discrimination training for all staff and measures to ensure better dissemination of complaints handling information internally, greater accessibility to policies for all staff and better visibility of contact information for the internal diversity officer. 

The complainant is Chinese and was working on a landscaping job at a client's residential address. He claimed the respondent, who is his client's neighbour, approached him and complained about the type of trees being planted and the conversation became heated. The complainant alleged the respondent shouted at him 'Don't let me see you here again! Get f**king out of my country you liar'.

The respondent denied the allegations but indicated a willingness to try and resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondent does not approach or address the complainant and raise any concerns about the landscaping with the complainant’s client.

The complainant had a contract with the respondent labour-hire agency. She alleged the agency did not put her forward for placements or inform her of upcoming opportunities after she informed the agency she was pregnant.

The agency denied the allegations of discrimination but agreed to participate in a conciliation process.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the agency pay the complainant $8,000 and provide her with a statement of service.

The complainant has Autism Spectrum Disorder, Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, and depression. She resided in a caravan park and sought permission to have an assistance dog reside with her. The caravan park declined the request, citing its ‘no pets’ policy for guests and residents. 

On being advised of the complaint the business indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant be permitted to have an assistance animal, provide relevant supporting documentation to the business, ensure the assistance animal was properly trained by an accredited organisation and ensure her dog practised appropriate toileting within the caravan park. 

The complainant attended the respondent private high school. She alleged that a colleague sexually harassed her, including by taking photos under her skirt, spreading rumours about her sex life, and circulating photos purported to be of her in the nude. She said she made a complaint about this behaviour to the school, but no action was taken. She claimed the school withdrew an award from her because she made a complaint.

The complainant’s colleague denied the allegations. The school said it investigated the complainant’s allegations, but these could not be substantiated.

The complaint was resolved. The school agreed to review its training for the following year in light of the allegations and to pay the complainant $9,000 to assist with medical expenses.

The complainant identifies as non-binary and sought to have their gender identifier with two government agencies changed to ‘X’ and honorific changed to ‘MX’. The complainant said that neither agency would change their gender to ‘X’ or their honorific to ‘MX’. The complainant said one agency agreed to change their gender marker to ‘M’, which they prefer to ‘F’ and offered to have no honorific. The complainant said they found this very distressing and that they felt uncomfortable accessing services due to the way gender was identified in their records. 

The agencies advised they were taking steps to introduce ‘X’ as a gender marker in their system, but given the complexity of this task, this may take some time.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that both agencies change the complainant’s gender marker to ‘M’ until ‘X’ is available. The agencies also agreed that certain staff members would be required to undergo refresher training on gender identity discrimination. The agencies agreed to write to the complainant expressing regret for the incidents giving rise to the complaint.

The complainant is blind and requires sighted assistance to fill out and sign print application forms. He said that he requested assistance from the respondent bank to fill out an investment growth bond application form and was told he would be charged a fee of $2,600. 

The bank said there had been miscommunication on the issue and explained the fee quoted to the complainant was a fee for financial advice and not for assistance to fill out an investment growth application form.  

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the bank pay the complainant $6,000 as general damages.  

The complainant’s son has Autism Spectrum Disorder and has an assistance dog to help him manage the effects of his disability. She alleged the respondent motel refused a booking for the family if her son was accompanied by his assistance dog. 

On being notified of the complaint, the motel agreed to participate in a conciliation process. 

The complaint was resolved after the motel acknowledged its obligations with respect to guests with assistance animals under anti-discrimination laws and updated its website to say that guests with assistance animals are welcome.

The complainant was a public housing tenant. She alleged she was not offered interpreting services and was therefore unable to raise concerns about her housing, including the behaviour of neighbours.

The relevant government department confirmed there had been difficulties associated with providing the complainant with an interpreter but denied this constituted racial discrimination.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant would be offered a different apartment on a top floor in order to avoid potential problems with neighbours.

 

The complainant applied for a coordinator position with the respondent retirement village. She alleged the recruitment officer asked her if she had children and commented that a staff member with children sometimes took time off due to the needs of the children.

On being advised of the complaint, the retirement village indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the retirement village write to the complainant apologising for the incident, develop a policy on equality of opportunity in employment and ensure staff are aware of the policy. The retirement village also undertook that its staff would not ask similar questions in future recruitment processes.

The complainant was employed as a sales representative with the respondent telecommunications company. She alleged the CEO made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature, including about her clothes, her sex-life and menopause. She alleged the CEO’s conduct contributed to a sexually hostile working environment.

The respondents denied the allegations but agreed to participate in a conciliation process.

The complainant was made redundant prior to the conciliation conference. The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $73,000.

The complainant is blind. His employer offered him the opportunity to participate in a postgraduate leadership program delivered by the respondent not-for-profit organisation. The complainant said he informed the organisation of his disability on enrolment and requested adjustments to accommodate his disability, including the provision of reading materials in an accessible format. The complainant alleged the organisation failed to provide him with printed materials in an accessible format and required him to participate in group activities being hosted on an online platform that was not accessible to his screen reading software. He also alleged the organisation refused to allow him to enrol in other core subjects.

The organisation claimed it provided reasonable adjustments to accommodate the Complainant’s disability. The organisation said the online learning platform was a new platform and the complainant did not advise the organisation of any difficulties he was experiencing in accessing the platform unless prompted.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the organisation develop and publish a disability action plan and make a financial contribution to a literature review assessing leadership pathways for people with disability in the Complainant’s profession.