Conciliation Register

The complainant uses a wheelchair. She alleged she had difficulty accessing the respondent retail outlet because aisles were obstructed by boxes, displays and decorations. She claimed when she raised the issue with the store manager she was treated in a disrespectful manner.

The retailer advised the complainant’s experience was an isolated incident and inconsistent with its policies. The retailer apologised to the complainant for her experience and indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved by conciliation with an undertaking that the retailer provide training to staff on appropriate stocking procedures and the need to maintain wheelchair accessible pathways in retail outlets. The retailer also undertook to remind staff of the need to respond to customer concerns in a professional manner and deliver training on the needs of customers with disability. Further, the retailer also undertook to deliver additional regular training and carry out regular audits to ensure its outlets comply with relevant accessibility policies and requirements. The manager referred to in the complaint was no longer employed by the retailer.

The complainant’s son has a rare chromosomal disorder and is non-ambulatory and non-verbal. She alleged the respondent private school declined her son’s application for enrolment on the basis that it considered his disability could not be accommodated in a mainstream environment.

The school denied any discrimination and indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the school pay the complainant $5,000 as general damages. The school apologised to the complainant for her experience and agreed to convey the complainant’s concerns about the nature of communications between the school and parents seeking to enrol children with disability as a senior leadership meeting.

The complainant said she is African and has brown skin. She alleged her manager at the respondent bridal store discriminated against her on the ground of her race, including by treating her disrespectfully, following her around the shop, offering her no shifts and preferring the company of a white colleague of a similar age to the complainant.

The respondents denied discriminating against the complainant. They said the complainant was advised that ongoing work was subject to an assessment of her performance during two trial shifts. The respondents claimed the complainant did not perform well, including in her use of body language and interactions with customers. The respondents said the successful applicant is from a culturally and ethnically diverse background and had skills and experience superior to those of the complainant.

The complaint was resolved by conciliation with an agreement that the shop pay the complainant $1,000 ex-gratia. The shop also undertook to provide clearer information to future applicants about the recruitment process, including that employment is subject to performance during trial shifts and that applicants are welcome to continue to seek job opportunities during the trial period.

The complainant alleged the respondent real estate agent denied her access to a property because she was accompanied by an assistance dog.

The real estate company apologised to the complainant for her experience and expressed a desire to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved by conciliation. The real estate agent was counselled and attended anti-discrimination training. The company delivered training to its staff on their obligations towards people with disability and assistance animals, incorporating information and resources provided by the Commission.

The complainant is an Aboriginal man. He was employed by the respondent health service as a Fire Safety and Security Officer. The complainant claimed the health service discriminated against him because of his race including by not automatically converting his part-time role to a full-time role when this became available until he raised the issue with his union, and ignoring his submissions in response to performance issues raised with him by the health service. He alleged his manager slapped him on the bottom when she walked past him on a number of occasions. He claimed he reported this conduct to the health service but no action was taken other than to offer him a meeting with the manager to ‘clear the air’. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the health service write to the complainant expressing regret for the events giving rise to his complaint, pay him $40,000 and update its training for managers on responding to allegations of sexual harassment in the workplace.

The complainant alleged the respondent local council failed to provide accessible parking at three local beaches.

The council advised it had recently introduced accessible parking at two of the beaches. The council advised accessible parking would be provided at the third beach as part of planned upgrades to parking facilities.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the council install bollards at the two beaches to ensure the accessible parking was accessible in line with Australian Standards.

The complainant identifies as lesbian and was employed with the respondent electrical infrastructure business as an apprentice electrician. She alleged that two colleagues referred to her as ‘lesbo’, ‘pole cat’, ‘dick tease’ and ‘a waste of a good mouth’ with reference to her sexual orientation. She also alleged the same colleagues touched and leaned against her and another colleague referred to her as a ‘f****ing slut’ behind her back. She alleged that her colleagues isolated her after she made a complaint about the alleged conduct and she was told male colleagues were making comments of a sexual nature about her. The complainant said she felt she had no option but to resign.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondents pay the complainant $80,000.

The complainant was recovering from back surgery and used a walking frame. She attended the respondent hotel and said there was no accessible bathroom. The complainant said the cubicle was too narrow and so she had to leave her walking frame outside the cubicle. She claimed that, due to the lack of handrails in the cubicle, she was then unable to stand and became trapped in the cubicle. The complainant said her partner was able to assist her with the cubicle door open. The complainant alleged that when she raised the issue with a staff member she felt the staff member was dismissive of her experience. The complainant said she felt distressed and embarrassed by the incident.

The hotel owner advised the hotel is very old and the building is heritage listed, having undergone its last major refurbishment several decades ago. The hotel advised that it undergoes regular building inspections and the accessibility of toilet facilities has never been raised.

The complaint was resolved by conciliation. The hotel apologised to the complainant for her experience. The hotel undertook to install rails in at least one of the bathroom stalls for men and women and to explore the option of installing an accessible toilet should the hotel be refurbished in the future. The hotel also undertook to continue to talk to its staff about their responsibilities towards patrons 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 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 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.