Conciliation Register

The complainant has a vision impairment and is accompanied by a guide dog. He alleged that drivers engaged by the respondent ride-share company declined to drive him and his guide dog on multiple occasions. He claimed the drivers originally accepted his trip, but once he requested the passenger seat be moved forward to accommodate his guide dogs, the drivers rejected his trip and directed him to request a pet driver.

The rideshare company argued that the driver partners were not employees or agents of the company and that the driver partners had been provided with information about discrimination and accessibility.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the rideshare company pay the complainant $500 and write to him apologising for his experience.

The complainant has a mobility disability and sought to park his car in an accessible parking spot at the respondent hotel’s car park. He claimed there was no accessible parking or courtesy parking for people with disability.

The hotel advised it did offer courtesy parking for people with disability but acknowledged the layout of the car park was confusing and that patrons may not easily identify accessible parking spots. The hotel undertook to update parking information on its website and to train frontline staff to assist patrons with disability requiring accessible parking.

The complainant considered the actions taken by the hotel resolved the complaint.

The complainant’s daughter has Autism Spectrum Disorder and communication difficulties. The complainant alleged the respondent private school declined her daughter’s application for enrolment and would not provide adjustments to accommodate her daughter’s disability.

The school claimed it requested additional information about the complainant’s daughter’s disability, which was not provided. The school said it made the complainant’s daughter an offer of enrolment but this was not accepted before the offer expired.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the school write to the complainant expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint, pay her $15,000 and update its policies on the enrolment and support of students with disability.

The complainant is 78 years of age and has a significant hearing impairment. He claimed the respondent cinema did not have the appropriate facilities to enable him to hear the film soundtrack. He claimed staff spoke to him abruptly and considered this may not have occurred if he was a younger person.

On being notified of the complaint, the cinema indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the cinema:

• Continue to improve facilities to enable access to film soundtracks by persons with impaired hearing, including headphones and infra-red technology
• Explore emerging accessibility technology being trialled by other cinemas
• Keep in contact with the complainant to offer updates and engage in consultation
• Review staff training on the needs of customers with disability, using the complainant’s experience as a case study
• Explore the possibility of re-screening the film the complainant wanted to see
• Offer the complainant two free cinema tickets.

The complainant alleged that during her employment with the respondent restaurant her manager slapped her on her bottom in front of customers and that on one occasion, after other staff had gone home, he said 'thank you so much dear' and kissed her on her cheek. She claimed that in response to her raising concerns about this conduct her boss said the manager also hugged and kissed other staff and they had no concerns about this.

The restaurant denied the allegations but agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the restaurant pay the complainant $20,000.

The complainant’s son has an assistance animal. The complainant and his family sought to dine at the respondent teppanyaki bar. The complainant alleged that the staff at the respondent restaurant told the family that they could only dine at an outside table due to the presence of the assistance animal. The complainant alleged that the restaurant staff then told the family they could sit inside but not at the grill because of the presence of the assistance animal.

On being notified of the complaint, the restaurant indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the restaurant write to the family apologising for the incident, update its discrimination policy relating to assistance animals and train staff accordingly, take step to obtain approval to display signage welcoming assistance animals, offer the family a free meal at the restaurant and pay the family $5,000.

The complainant is from Papua New Guinea and is a person of colour. He was employed as an orderly with the respondent not for profit hospital. The complainant alleged he was subjected to racist slurs and conduct from various staff including a colleague performing mock tribal dances in front of him. The complainant alleged the hospital failed to act on his allegations of racial discrimination. He said his employment was terminated after he damaged a colleague’s car in retaliation for ongoing discriminatory treatment.

The hospital claimed it investigated the complainant’s allegations and found only one claim to be substantiated. The hospital claimed it took appropriate action in response to the complainant’s allegations and that the termination of his employment was appropriate. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the hospital pay the complainant approximately $3,750, equivalent to three weeks’ salary.

The complainant (C) is a national LGBTIQ+ organisation whose purpose is to improve the wellbeing and circumstances of LGBTIQ+ people in Australia and their families and children. C alleged that the first respondent statutory officeholder decided not to recommend that topics relating to gender identity, innate variations of sex characteristics and sexual orientation be included in the 2021 Census. C also alleged that the second respondent Ministerial office advised the Governor-General in line with that recommendation and thus it took effect. C alleged that the first respondent prepared the 2021 Census form that: framed the question on sex narrowly with reference to male, female or ‘non-binary sex’ only; framed the question on ancestry in the gender-specific and heteronormative terms of ‘father’ and ‘mother’ or otherwise seeking the country of birth of only one parent; and excluded those people who had selected 'non-binary sex' or who are trans men from the option to answer whether they had ever given birth to a child. The C alleged sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex discrimination and accessory liability. 

The respondents (Rs) submitted that the C's concerns about the decision relating to what topics to be included in the 2021 Census related to the automatic operation of the relevant legislation and/or the legislative process and thus they do not come within the Commission's complaint handling jurisdiction. Rs also submitted that the framing of the questions in the 2021 Census dealing with sex and ancestry was lawful for the purpose of the SDA, and also reasonable in the circumstances.

Both parties indicated their willingness to participate in an in-person conciliation conference to try to resolve the complaint, and reached settlement, terms of which included: 

• The federal government agency headed by the first respondent (the Agency) agreed to issue the C with a statement of regret, and to publish it on its website, acknowledging the C's complaint to the Commission; recognising the LGBITQ+ people's hurt, stress, anguish and other negative reactions to some 2021 Census questions; and noting its awareness that the framing of some 2021 Census questions and certain language used in those questions was seen or experienced by some as hurtful, confusing, demeaning and discriminatory. 
• The public statement of regret issued by the Agency was also to note the review and update that it has carried out since the 2021 Census on the Agency's Standard for Sex, Gender, Variations of Sex Characteristics and Sexual Orientation Variables in partnership with LGBTIQ+ community representatives; and to note the consultation process that the Agency expanded to maximise community participation.
• The Agency committed to establish an LGBTIQ+ Expert Advisory Committee for the 2026 Census to provide guidance and input into the Census topic review and framing of Census questions, and the way that Census data is processed and disseminated. 
• The relevant Minister agrees to meet with the Expert Advisory Committee in relation to his responsibilities with topics for the 2026 Census. 

The complainant applied for a role with the respondent government agency but was unsuccessful because he has diabetes.

The government agency claimed the complainant’s disability prevented him from safely performing the inherent requirements of the role but indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant could proceed with the recruitment process and provide additional information about his disability.

The complainant is Ethiopian and has black skin. He was employed as a coordinator with the respondent charity. He claimed that members of the Anglo-Australian leadership team discriminated against him because of his race and colour, including by falsely blaming him for unexpected staff departures, falsely accusing him of being idle, suggesting they were unique people and did not need his leadership, and fabricating allegations of misconduct against him. He claimed they were trying to persuade him to quit. 

The charity denied that any of the alleged conduct arose due to the complainant’s race. The charity claimed tensions arose between the complainant and long-standing staff with a charity background because the complainant had previously been employed in the corporate sector. The charity acknowledged that there was poor communication with staff about the complainant’s role and objectives and robust change-management processes were not in place.

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The charity agreed to pay the complainant his statutory entitlements, pay him $22,000 as general damages, write to him expressing regret for the events giving rise to his complaint and provide him with a statement of service.

The complainant advised she had depression for a short period in the past and that this does not impact on her ability to work. She applied for an increase to income protection insurance which was granted with an exception for mental health issues. She said she applied for a further two increases to her income protection insurance and claims the respondent insurer granted the first request with an exception for mental health issues and declined the second request.

The insurer denied unlawful discrimination but indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the insurer pay the complainant $9,000.
 

The complainant is legally blind and was employed as a senior staff member with the respondent recruitment agency. He alleged other members of senior staff and the business owner discriminated against him because of his disability, including by ridiculing him for not using two computer screens, making derogatory comments about his disability and threatening to demote him when he sought to access personal leave.

The respondents denied discriminating against the complainant but agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the employment relationship come to an end, the respondents pay the complainant $38,000 and provide him with a statement of service.

The complainant is a single mother of a school-aged child and worked in a management role with the respondent company. The company required staff in management to work on both days on weekends. The complainant said she informed the company she would be unable to work on both days on the weekend because of her family responsibilities. She said that, after initially accommodating her needs, the company later required her to work both days on weekends.

The company said all managers were required to work both days on weekends to meet operational needs and claimed this policy was developed in consultation with managers. The company said it encouraged the complainant to consider whether she could make arrangements for the care of her child or consider a different position in the company. The company said it was left with no option but to terminate the complainant’s employment.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $25,000 as general damages.

The complainant has memory loss. He said he sought to import his mobile phone number with the respondent telecommunications provider to a different provider. He said he was unsuccessful because personal information held by the two providers did not match. The complainant alleged that when he contacted the respondent to address the issue, he was required to answer a number of personal questions to establish ownership of the account. As the complainant could not recall the answers to the questions, he was unable to establish ownership of the account. 

On being notified of the complaint, the telecommunications provider denied unlawful discrimination but agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved once the telecommunications provider established the complainant was the owner of the account. The provider agreed to offer the complainant a free one-year phone plan.