Conciliation Register

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’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 is gay. She was employed for three months with the respondent sports governing body. The complainant alleged that a colleague made comments about gay women which made her uncomfortable in the workplace including that playing the sport “will make you gay”, that gay women are more likely to have psychological issues and display predatory behaviours and that he would prefer that his children not be gay. The complainant also alleged another colleague made a comment of a sexual nature about a female celebrity and told her he did not want to be in a relationship because he “liked lots of girls”, which make the complainant uncomfortable. The complainant said she resigned and reported her concerns internally.

On being advised of the complaint the sport governing body indicated a willingness to try to resolve the matter through conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the sport governing body pay the complainant approximately $10,000 less applicable tax (the equivalent of 8 weeks' pay) and provide her with a statement of service.

The complainant has osteoarthritis and uses lifts to accommodate resulting mobility difficulties. She alleged lifts at the respondent shopping centre were unavailable for an extended period, restricting her access to services on different levels.

On being notified of the complaint, the shopping centre indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with undertakings by the shopping centre to:

• Meet with the complainant to discuss her concerns
• Review its processes relating to regular monitoring of lifts, signage and customer feedback
• Source spare lift parts from different suppliers as appropriate and negotiate regular timely maintenance of the lifts with the current supplier
• Commission an independent review of the lifts.

The complainant was a student of the respondent vocational training body. She alleged the training body informed her that due to her pregnancy, she would not be permitted to participate in a module with potentially distressing content, and that she could not complete three mandatory practical components of the course until six months post-partum. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the training body to change its policy to enable pregnant students to participate in the module that contained potentially distressing content subject to students signing a waiver confirming their awareness of the subject matter and potential for distress. The training body also undertook that while pregnant students would not be able to complete practical modules of the course in their last trimester for safety reasons, their ability to do so post-partum would be considered on a case-by-case basis.

The complainant’s six-year-old son has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Autism Spectrum Disorder and developmental delay. The complainant alleged the respondent independent school did not allow her son to attend the first week of kindergarten because he may scare other children and then would only allow him to attend school for three hours per day. The complainant also alleged that the school did not accommodate her son’s disability in the classroom, did not make allowances for her son’s disability when applying disciplinary policy and did not develop an individual plan for her son. The complainant’s son was ultimately suspended and the complainant removed him from the school. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the school pay the complainant $25,000. The complainant agreed to take down negative social media content she had posted about the school.

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.