Aboriginal discrimination
Age discrimination
Carer’s responsibilities discrimination
Disability discrimination
Homosexual discrimination
Marital status discrimination
Pregnancy discrimination
Race discrimination
Sex discrimination
Sexual harassment
Transgender discrimination
Victimisation
Vilification

Aboriginal discrimination cases handled by the Board

Aboriginal discrimination in employment

• Unwarranted attention
  The complainants were a defacto couple, one of whom is Aboriginal, who went with their baby to a store to buy clothes. They alleged that one sales assistant treated them abruptly and rudely, and insisted on taking items from them while they browsed in another part of the store.
  
  In addition they said they were given unwarranted attention by several sales assistants who later appeared to notify a loss prevention officer. They said that when they complained to store management, their complaint was not taken seriously or dealt with adequately.
  
  The respondent denied that the complainants had been treated rudely or abruptly, and said that what they were describing was consistent with how any customer in similar circumstances would be treated, regardless of their race. The complaint was settled when the complainants accepted the respondent’s offer of $250.

• Work monitored
  An Aboriginal woman felt that her supervisor undertook unnecessary monitoring of her work and generally treated her in a patronising way in comparison with non-indigenous workers. She also developed a back problem, which meant that she was unable to continue working with the group she had originally been assigned. Despite continual requests to be transferred to work with another group her request was not met, even though a vacancy came up in a suitable group, which was filled by a casual worker. She lodged a complaint of race and sex discrimination with the Board. The complaint was resolved at a conciliation conference with $2,500 paid to the woman. The employer also undertook to request that the supervisor make a written apology to her and be made aware of the employer’s policies regarding Aboriginal cultural awareness.

• Difficulty with a welfare agency
  An Aboriginal woman went to a welfare agency to collect some furniture that had been allocated to her by an assessor of the agency. She alleged that the office manager became abusive towards her when she asked to choose the items of furniture. She also alleged that when she tried to reason with the manager, he become more abusive and ordered her from the shop. She complained to the Board about race discrimination. The complaint was resolved when the woman accepted an explanation of the agency’s policy for allocation of furniture and a statement of regret. She also accepted the agency’s invitation to return to the agency to fulfill the order.

• Problems at an educational authority
  Some students called an Aboriginal boy racist names at an educational authority. When the educational authority took no action to resolve the problem, the boy complained to the Board about race discrimination. The Board wrote to the educational authority, which then took steps to counsel the boys who had caused the problem and to provide mentoring to the boy who had been harassed.

• Suspended from school
  The father of a teenage Aboriginal boy made a complaint of race discrimination to the Board on behalf of his son after he was allegedly subjected to racial abuse by other students at his school. The school accepted that the comments had been made, but said that they had taken action against the students involved and suspended them from school. They also said that there had been a series of incidents involving angry and irrational behaviour by his son, who had been suspended several times himself. The complaint was resolved when the school agreed to pay $2,000 and waive his school fees.

• Certificate of Aboriginality
  An Aboriginal man applied to his housing provider for a larger house, for reasons relating to his Aboriginality. His application was rejected on the grounds that he did not provide a ‘Certificate of Aboriginality’ (see definition below) to prove that he was Aboriginal. The man made a complaint of race discrimination to the Board. He explained that although he did not have a Certificate of Aboriginality, he had legal documents relating to his removal from his Aboriginal family as a child.

  At conciliation, the housing provider said that the man had not provided the legal documents when he made the original application, and they would have accepted these as proof of Aboriginality. The man said the housing provider had not told him he that had the option of providing other documentation apart from the Certificate of Aboriginality.

  The complaint was resolved when the housing provider agreed to transfer the man to a larger house near where he was receiving medical treatment, to provide him with a statement of regret and pay him $3,000 compensation, and to its policy regarding proof of Aboriginality in consultation with the man and the relevant agencies.

  Certificate of Aboriginality

  The accepted definition of an Aboriginal person (for example, as defined by the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983), is a person who:

  • is of Aboriginal descent;
  • identifies as an Aboriginal person; and,
  • is accepted by the Aboriginal community in which they live.
  
  As a result of such (legal) definitions of Aboriginality, government departments now require Aboriginal people to provide ‘proof of Aboriginality’ to be eligible for any financial or other assistance (Eg. public housing).

  Aboriginal people can approach their Local Aboriginal Land Council, or an Aboriginal Community Organisation to apply for a ‘Confirmation of Aboriginality’ or a ‘Certificate of Aboriginality’. Essentially, such documents state that the person is known to identify as an Aboriginal person and is accepted by that community as an Aboriginal person.

• Three-month trial lease
  An Aboriginal man alleged that his application for accommodation was not progressed on the ground of his race. He said that he was advised that he would need to go on a three month trial lease if he was the successful applicant. His application was ultimately rejected and the agent refused to provide with reasons for the rejection. After complaining to the Board about race discrimination, he accepted a $4,000 payment in settlement of his complaint.

• Refused housing
  An Aboriginal woman alleged that she would not be offered a house because an Aboriginal housing corporation board member had told the real estate agent managing the property that she didn’t associate with other Aboriginal people, her children went to a non-Aboriginal pre-school and her husband was not Aboriginal. She made a complaint to the Anti-Discrimination Board of race discrimination by association and marital status discrimination against the corporation’s board. The corporation said that the process of selection had not actually been completed and that the board member had spoken to the real estate agent without their authority. The complaint was resolved when the corporation agreed to provide the woman with a letter of apology and a payment of $2,000. The house had already been allocated to another applicant whom the corporation considered to be in greater need.

• Refused rental accommodation
  An Aboriginal woman looked at a vacant house being offered by a real estate agent and said that she would like to rent it. The agent told her that the owners refused to let it to her because she was Aboriginal. A conciliation conference at the Board resulted in an apology and financial compensation.

• 17-year old sacked
  A 17-year-old school student worked at a fast food chain on a casual basis for several years. A few months before her 18th birthday, the employer told her she wouldn’t be given any more work because they couldn’t afford to employ her any more. Instead they would be recruiting younger staff because they were cheaper to employ. The student wrote to the Board seeking our assistance in order to claim the wages she’d lost by being dismissed. After the Board wrote to the employer, they agreed to pay her the wages she’d lost.

• Age and personal style
  A woman worked in promotions for an entertainment provider. She alleged that the manager made comments on her age and personal style, and said that “she had a lot to learn”. She eventually left the job and felt her confidence had been seriously undermined. She made a complaint of age and sex discrimination to the Board. The manager said that he was not discriminating against her, but was only giving her “tips” on how to improve her work. The complaint was resolved when the company agreed to give the woman a statement of regret, a statement of employment and a payment of $2,000.

• Younger applicants chosen
  A woman in her 50s applied to a recruitment agency for work and was called in for an interview to be referred for a position. She alleged that during the interview she was asked her date of birth, and when she questioned the justification for this the consultant appeared to become less enthusiastic about her and the interview deteriorated. She was not put forward for the position, and later she found out that the four people put forward were all in their 20s. Also, the successful candidate had significantly less qualifications and experience than she did. The requirement for younger candidates had not been part of the brief from the client company for the position. The woman made a complaint of age discrimination to the Board. The agency said that the decision was not discriminatory, but agreed that a question about age on their application form and the question at the interview could have led to the perception of discrimination. At a conciliation conference at the Board, the agency agreed to remove the date of birth field from their application form, to implement training for all staff on preventing discrimination, and to monitor and provide feedback to staff on EEO issues. The agency offered the woman a financial settlement but she declined this, saying that her goal was to effect change not to receive compensation.

• Younger sales people
  An employment agency referred a 45-year-old man to an employer who had asked for people with sales experience. However, he was advised by the agency that the employer had decided that he was unsuitable, but would not give reasons. He said that when he contacted the employer directly, the employer advised him that he wanted younger sales people working in his store. After the man made a complaint of age discrimination to the Board, the employer said that there were no actual vacancies at that time. The complaint was resolved when the man accepted a payment of $1,000.

• 69-year old unable to return to normal duties
  A 69-year-old man was employed on a production line. One significant part of his duties was repetitive lifting, which he had done for the previous 9 years. After he’d had minor surgery to repair a hernia caused by lifting, he alleged that the employer’s rehabilitation manager advised him that he should not return to his normal duties because of his age. He also alleged that his employer contacted his doctor and advised the doctor that the clearance should not have been provided. The matter was resolved when the man was returned to his normal duties after initial contact by the Board.

• Man in his 60s put off after three-month probation
  A man in his 60s was employed as a sales worker by a car dealer, but was put off before the end of his three-month probation. He alleged that this was because of age discrimination. The man said that on one occasion his manager had called him a “senile old p…..”, and on another he had called him a “silly old fool” in front of other staff when he arrived late to a meeting. The company said that if they had been concerned about the man’s age they wouldn’t have employed him in the first place. They said that he had been put off because his sales performance was not at the required level. The man disputed the employer’s interpretation of the sales figures and said that his sales had been reasonable. The complaint was resolved when the company agreed to pay him $5,000.

• Name calling
  A woman worked at a regional newspaper office. Whenever she made a mistake, no matter how minor, her boss would call her a ‘senile old-bag.’ After a month of telling her boss to stop, the woman left the workplace. She complained to the Board and at a conciliation conference, her former employers agreed to pay her $3,000 for lost wages and pain and suffering.

• Made redundant
  A man who worked for his employer for many years, alleged that he was repeatedly asked about his plans for retirement, and that he was made redundant when he made it clear that he was not intending to retire in the near future. The company denied that pressure had been put on him to retire and said that the redundancy was genuine and based on a general restructure to define the future direction of the business. The matter was resolved by the company paying the man's legal costs relating to an industrial claim about the terms of the redundancy itself.

• Difficulty accessing superannuation account on line
  A man lodged a complaint with the Board against his superannuation fund, alleging age discrimination in the provision of goods and services. He stated that after turning 65 he was no longer able to access his account details online. The fund agreed that the man, because of his age, fell into a class of customers who were no longer able to access details of their superannuation scheme online. However, the fund said that there were few members in this particular class of membership and that it would be financially prohibitive to provide services in this way to the man. They claimed that they would have to build a whole new website, including the various scripts and programs required to calculate the account status of the few members who fell into the man’s category. The man argued that the fund should prepare itself for increased numbers of people who like him, were not intending to retire from employment for some years to come. The matter was resolved when the man accepted an offer that he would be sent detailed quarterly account statements. The man was also advised that he could access information of his account via the telephone service.

• Refused employer's offer of part-time work - complaint declined by the Board
  A woman’s employer refused to allow her to work from home to look after her baby after she returned to work from maternity leave. She complained to the Board about carers’ responsibilities discrimination. On contacting the employer, the Board found that they had offered the woman part-time work, but the woman had refused to consider this. She had not even tried to see if part-time work was a satisfactory option. The Board declined the complaint as misconceived and lacking in substance, because the woman had rejected the employer’s option of part-time work without investigating how this would affect her caring responsibilities.

• Request to work part-time to look after grandfather denied
  A man was working in the health services industry. He complained to the Board that his employer had discriminated against him on the basis of his carer’s responsibilities after they rejected his application to work part-time so that he could care for his aged grandfather, whose health was in decline. After he lodged his complaint with the Board, the employer victimised him by refusing to employ him until he produced a clearance certificate indicating that he was fit to work after taking sick leave. The complaint was resolved when the employer agreed to allow the employee to work part-time. The employer also agreed to instruct managers about carers’ responsibilities and the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act.

• Job share refused
  Two women, returning from maternity leave, wanted to work part-time to care for their children. They suggested a job-sharing arrangement to their employer, which would have allowed them to perform all the duties of their positions between the two of them. Their proposal was refused, with the company arguing that the job in question could not be undertaken in a shared capacity. However the company did not search for other positions that the two women could have done part-time, although new staff had been recruited. The women’s complaints were settled at conciliation conferences, with one woman receiving $4,000 and the other $5,000.

• Fulltime position
  A woman who was an accountant with a commercial organisation wanted to return to work after maternity leave three days per week. The employer rejected this proposal. She then proposed that she return four days per week and be available by telephone on the other day. This suggestion was also rejected, because the employer said that her position was a full time role. At a conciliation conference at the Board, the employer said the employee was very valuable to the organisation and they wanted her back, but they needed her to work full time. The complaint was settled when the parties agreed that the employer should pay her $12,500 and give her a good reference.

• Returning from maternity leave
  While a woman was on maternity leave, a company bought the food distribution business she worked for and existing staff were transferred to the new company. The new company contacted the woman to ask her if she wanted to continue working with them, and she said yes. However, she said that when she wanted to return to work, the regional manager told her that there was no suitable job available, apart from one that was too far away to be practical. The woman made a complaint of carers’ responsibilities discrimination to the Board. At a conciliation conference, the company agreed that they had in effect not re-employed the woman after her maternity leave. The company offered to re-employ her, but she declined this. They agreed to pay her $17,000 compensation for loss of income.

• Refused flexible working arrangements to care for children
  A man who was a middle manager in the human services industry wanted to negotiate more flexible working arrangements so that he could take care of his young children. He said that after he did this, he was harassed and bullied by his manager. The manager put pressure on him to make child care arrangements, accused him of not doing enough to find appropriate child care, and made phone calls on his behalf to find the kind of care that the manager considered suitable. The man became very stressed, went on leave and made a complaint of carers’ responsibilities discrimination to the Board. The complaint was conciliated when the employer agreed to pay him a separation payment and compensation totaling $10,000, in exchange for his resignation.

• Single father stood down
  A single father was employed as an assistant manager on an isolated rural property and had lived and worked there for 16 years. On one occasion, he had to take his youngest son to school and received permission from the station manager to do so. On his return, he was advised, by one of the directors, that he was being stood down for that week. No reason was given. The man was later told that his position had been made redundant and his employment terminated. This meant that he had to vacate the family home and try to find a new job and a new home for his sons. He lodged a complaint of carer’s responsibilities with the Board. He claimed that a director had commented that he would not have been able to do his job and take his son to school. The man argued that his family responsibilities had never affected his work performance and that his employer had given him no opportunity to respond before he was dismissed. The employer denied that they had discriminated against him on the basis of his carer’s responsibilities, but asserted that the drought and the changing nature of the assistant manager’s role had made their decision to terminate the man’s employment necessary. The matter was resolved when the man accepted a payment of $10,000 to settle his complaint.

• Roster arrangements difficult due to carers’ responsibilities
  A woman with a young school age daughter and elderly parents who required care and support, worked 20 hours per week. The employer’s rostering arrangements required that the woman be available to work 4 hours each day within a nine hour period with no set start or finish times. The woman complained to the Board, alleging that these arrangements made it difficult to make childcare arrangements and to organise support for her aged parents and mother in-law. Her many requests to management to negotiate a different roster were refused. The employer’s response to the complaint lacked any information, which suggested they hadn’t given the woman’s proposal proper consideration. The matter was resolved when the woman and the employer were able to negotiate a new roster which met both their needs. The woman also accepted a payment of $1,000 in settlement of the matter.

• Resignation after part-time work denied
  A woman who was employed in an administrative position made a number of written requests to her employer to return to work on a part-time basis after the birth of her child. She alleged that despite making these requests over a period of more than eight months, her employer put off making a decision until eventually advising her that she would be required to work on a full-time basis. She resigned and lodged a complaint with the Board. Her employer offered her part-time work. She advised that she did not feel she could go back to work for this employer and that she had found part-time work elsewhere. She accepted a payment of $5,000 in settlement of her complaint.

• Hours extended
  A woman alleged that the manager of the company where she worked refused to provide her with part-time work after the birth of her child. With advice from the Board, she was able to negotiate an agreement to work part-time until a placement became available at a childcare centre. She was also responsible for caring for her octogenarian parents and had to assist them every day with meals and medication. She said that the management of the company decided to extend her hours of work each day, and she was unable to work these longer hours. She alleged that there was no good cause or explanation for the change, and that the company was discriminating against her on the ground of her carer’s responsibilities. The complaint was resolved after the Board began investigating it, and more senior managers in the company became involved. They decided that the change to the woman’s working hours was unnecessary.

• Not allowed to pick up children
  The woman worked as a driver for a government department. She has five children and at the time her husband was the primary carer for them. However, on one occasion her husband was unable to pick the children up from little athletics, so she changed shifts so that she could pick them up. However, when she was due to finish work, her supervisor would not allow her to leave, and cast aspersions on her husband about why he couldn’t pick the children up. She made an internal complaint and requested an apology, but the supervisor refused to apologise unless the woman also apologised. An internal mediation did not solve the problem. She then made a complaint to the Board. At a conciliation conference it was agreed that the supervisor would apologise and a small amount of leave would be reinstated. However neither of these things occurred and she was required to work under the supervisor again. She became very stressed, went on sick leave and came back to the Board. Eventually the complaint was resolved when the woman made contact with the chief executive of the department. She received an apology, had her sick and recreation leave refunded, and received an amount to compensate for lost shift allowances while on leave and other expenses relating to the case.

• Leave without pay refused
  A teacher asked her employer to take leave without pay for two days a week, in order to work part-time. She needed to spend more time with her children because her husband, who was in the armed forces, was being sent away from home. The school principal refused her request, allegedly saying that he didn’t believe in leave without pay for carers’ purposes. The complaint was resolved when the school agreed to return the long service leave the teacher had been forced to take, and pay her $3,200. She also agreed to withdraw a victimisation complaint she had lodged after the initial complaint.

• Offered lower-graded part-time positions
  A woman was employed as a team leader in a large company for a couple of years before taking maternity leave for a year. During her absence, there were some changes at the company. Just prior to her return, she made contact with the company and was told that she could only return to her position fulltime, not part-time as she had requested. She was offered lower grade positions on a part-time basis which she said would result in a substantially lower income and professional disadvantage. She was told that her old position did not exist due to a restructure and the fulltime position she was being offered was of a lower status than her original position. She resigned her position and began retraining in an alternative career. The matter was resolved prior to a conciliation conference being held by negotiations through the Board. The employer paid the woman $12,000 plus $3,000 for training for the alternative career.
  

• Woman resigns and is reemployed as a consultant
  A woman complained to the Board about carers' responsibility discrimination after she was initially refused part-time work so she could care for her young child. She then resigned and returned in a consultant capacity, but she felt isolated and the subject of a view that she was not pulling her weight because she was a part timer and the workloads were great. The matter was settled when the company agreed to pay her $9,000 for pain and suffering, and to publicise its intention to take notice of the carers’ responsibility legislation.

• Not offered redundancy
  A woman had worked for her employer for a number of years. While on maternity leave she was advised that several positions, including hers, had been made redundant. She still had another six months of maternity leave left and was told she could apply for any vacant positions on her return.

  The woman contacted her employer before she was due to return to work to confirm her return date. She alleged she was told that there were no positions currently available that were similar to previous position and was given the option of moving into other positions, which did not have the same level of responsibility or duties requiring her skills. While other staff had been given the option of being made redundant, this option was not offered to the woman. The woman complained to the Board about carer’s responsibilities and sex discrimination.

  Prior to conciliation conference the employer advised that they would prefer to make an offer directly to the woman to resolve the matter. The woman’s proposal of being paid a redundancy was accepted. She received $11,300 a component of which included her statutory entitlements.

• Refused professional position
  A woman applied for a professional position. She alleged that she attended an interview with the employer who failed to ask her any relevant questions about her skills, qualifications or experience. Instead, they continually asked her questions about her carer’s responsibilities as a single mother. She alleged that the employer made it clear that he would not consider employing her because of her carer’s responsibilities. She alleged that after some time transpired and having heard nothing further from the employer, she then made a complaint about the treatment to the employer’s state office.
  
  The matter was resolved when, after lodging her complaint with the Board and the Board writing to the employer’s national office, the employer contacted the woman and they came to a private resolution of the matter.

• Assistant manager
  A woman worked for a company as an assistant manager of one of its retail outlets. She requested part-time work on return from maternity leave to enable her to care for her baby. The employer refused her request on the basis that the role at the particular outlet at which the woman worked could not function on a part-time basis. The matter was resolved at conciliation when the employer made an offer of appointment to the woman, as a manager (in a job share situation) at one of its other retail outlets. The offer was accepted as the proposal represented a promotion for the woman and also met with her need for part-time work. She has since commenced in the position and reports being very happy with the outcome.

• Request for accrued leave
  A man requested five weeks of accrued annual leave to enable him to care for his pre-school daughter whilst his partner was overseas. The request was refused by his employer on the basis of operational requirements. After the Board wrote to the employer, it reconsidered the man’s request and granted him approval to take leave.

• Combination of leave
  A man sought to take a combination of sick leave and accrued annual leave in order to care for his elderly and infirm parents. He alleged that his employer failed to give due consideration to his request and at the time of lodging his complaint, had not yet determined whether the requested leave would be granted. After the Board wrote to the employer, it granted the man’s request to approve the leave.

• Workplace injury

  A registered nurse alleged that his employer unlawfully discriminated against him on the ground of disability in the area of employment when, following his full recovery from a workplace injury, it refused to return him to nursing duties. The matter was resolved after the Board provided notice of the complaint to the respondent and set a date for a conciliation conference. Following notice of the complaint, the parties entered into a deed of release as part of a settlement of the complainant’s workers compensation matter, a term of which included settlement of his complaint with the Anti-Discrimination Board.

• Humiliated and embrassed

  The complainant suffers from polio, which causes her to walk with a limp. She attended training as required by her employer. The training was conducted by an external provider. The complainant alleged that the trainer of the workshop severely humiliated and embarrassed her in front of other workshop participants when he questioned her about what was wrong with her leg in a demeaning manner, and further, that he mimicked the way she walked in front of other participants. The complainant alleged that she was affronted by the trainer’s conduct, which left her feeling numb and speechless. The complainant was resolved when the complainant accepted a payment of $6,000 in settlement of the matter.

• Medically assessed
  A heavy vehicle driver alleged that his employer had him medically assessed after his involvement in an accident, after which he was permanently removed from his position as driver and demoted to a lesser position. The driver alleged that his removal from driving was not warranted, as the medical assessment failed to reveal any underlying medical condition that was causally connected to the accident. The driver alleged that the accident occurred after he had sustained a micro sleep due to working long hours without relief. The driver, who speaks English as a second language, says that he incorrectly used the words ‘blacked out’ when describing what had occurred in the accident to his employer. He also asserted that there was only minor damage to property caused by the accident. The employer asserted that this was the second occasion on which the complainant appeared to briefly loose consciousness without explanation. It asserted that it had a duty of care to the driver, to its other employees and to the public. The employer asserted that the driver’s demotion did not result in a loss of wages for the complainant who had suffered no material detriment. The driver alleged that the detriment was a loss of opportunity to work overtime which was more frequently available to drivers. The respondents operations were due to be taken over by a new employer consequently the complainant and all other employees had been made redundant and at the time of the complaint being lodged, were in the process of applying for employment with the new employer. The matter was resolved when the respondent agreed to pay the complainant’s outstanding medical bills and to calculate all the complainant’s redundancy payments at the rate of driver.

• The matter was resolved
  The complainant has been profoundly deaf from birth, and as a consequence, is also mute. The complaint’s preferred method of communication is Auslan and he has a limited ability to lip-read. However he is able to read and write in English. The complainant worked for the respondent as a general labourer. The complainant alleged that he had not been given consideration for promotion to the position of leading hand, because he was deaf. He stated that he had worked for his employer for many years but had been provided with few opportunities for advancement. The complainant alleged that the respondent relied too much on informal methods of communication in order to communicate important workplace issues to him. The complainant alleged that the respondent had effectively ignored him when it called him to a meeting at which a co-worker, with many lesser years of experience and skills than he, was appointed to the position of acting leading hand. The complainant alleged that the respondent had treated him less favourably than his co-workers who had been directly involved in the discussion at the meeting, while he was left to wonder what the meeting’s agenda and discussion was until being told by a fellow worker at the conclusion of the meeting. The respondent asserted that the complainant’s disability did not have a bearing on its decision to promote the other worker. The respondent asserted that the position of leading hand was a temporary one and that the complainant had been provided with a similar promotion previously. The matter was resolved when the respondent agreed to a number of undertakings including: provision of deafness awareness training to its employees; the provision of Auslan interpreters at important meetings and training; approval of professional development for the complainant to attend a course for supervisors; an undertaking to provide the complainant and his co-workers with the use of various visual aids, including a laptop PC to assist with communication; and, provision of one-on-one training for the complainant, with the assistance of an Auslan interpreter, to explain the employer’s system of grading and classification of its employees and the available career paths.

• Stress-related illness
  A woman applied for employment with a recruitment agency for the position of trainee recruiter. She alleged that after attending a number of interviews and being given the impression that she was successful in her application, she was unsuccessful. She said that when she asked a reason for this, she was advised that one of her referees had mentioned a stress-related illness. The agency denied that they’d said this, but claimed that the woman didn’t have enough sales experience and appeared to have a low stress tolerance. They claimed they were unaware that the woman had any stress-related illness and denied that her referee had disclosed this. The agency said that their tests had indicated the woman’s low stress tolerance and that the position was essentially a high-pressure sales position. The matter was resolved when the woman accepted a payment equivalent to the expenses she incurred in applying for the position.

• Suitable duties
  A man was employed under the Electronic & Communications Contracting State Award. The exact position he held was in dispute. He had sustained a number of electric shocks during his employment and said that the last electrocution had caused him to suffer from depression and acute anxiety. The employer had initially provided him with some alternative duties, but he was later placed on worker’s compensation payments as the employer claimed that there were no suitable duties available for him. The employer ultimately terminated the man’s employment, saying that he could no longer perform the work he was employed to do. The man complained to the Board, claiming that the employer had not made any genuine attempts to rehabilitate him and that he could have returned to his position at some point in the future. The employer said that it had complied with its requirements under Workcover legislation. However, the employer also indicated that they had not investigated whether any services and facilities could have been provided to the man to help him perform the inherent requirements of the job. The man accepted a payment of $4,750 in settlement of his complaint.

• Dismissal allegedly due to bipolar disorder
  A young man who was employed in a small manufacturing workshop, alleged that he was fired four weeks after he started because his employer discovered that he has bipolar disorder. He agreed that the employer told him that he was being terminated because he could not be relied on to turn up for work. However, he said he thought his disability was the real reason for the termination. There was no dispute between the parties that the man had told his condition to his employer when he began work. The parties also agreed that during the month of his employment he was absent six times at short notice. These absences were for a variety of reasons to do with the man’s car (he lived 70 km from the workplace). The complaint was resolved in a conciliation conference when the man accepted the employer’s explanation for the reason for his termination.

• Time taken off for surgery
  A woman was employed as a salesperson. Shortly after she began working, she needed to take time off work for an operation and to recuperate. After she had the operation her supervisor became hostile towards her and later terminated her employment. She made a complaint of disability discrimination to the Board, alleging that the reason she was terminated was because her supervisor resented her taking time off work. The complaint was resolved when the woman accepted a payment of $1,000 in settlement.

• Restricted duties as part of a rehabilitation plan
  A woman was employed as a domestic. She sustained a back injury while at work and went on workers’ compensation. She was then put on restricted duties as part of a rehabilitation plan. She complained to the Board, alleging that her employer pressured her to perform duties that were too difficult and put her at risk of aggravating her injury. The complaint was resolved when the woman accepted a payment of $3,500 from her employer.

• Review of recruitment policies
  A woman applied for employment as a registered nurse in an aged care facility. She alleged that she was given positive feedback when she went for an interview, and was left with the impression that she had the job as long as she passed the medical. She attended this later that day. A few days after the medical she was advised by the convenor of the panel that she could not be offered the job despite meeting all the relevant criteria. She alleged that despite her requests the reasons for this decision were never given to her. After she complained to the Board, the matter was resolved when the woman accepted the employer’s written explanation, and a written undertaking to review its policies on recruitment.

• Short stature
  A woman of extremely short stature applied to work at a food production company in her region. She had the relevant qualifications but alleged that she was told she wouldn’t be given a job as she was too short and would “fall through the boards” on the shop floor. She asked around and discovered that it was very unlikely that the boards would be a problem. She lodged a complaint of disability discrimination with the Board. At a conciliation conference, the company agreed to give her a three-month trial. She got through this and is still working there, although there have been some ongoing problems.

• Colour blindness
  A man applied for employment with a government agency. After undergoing medical checks he was told he was unsuitable for the position because he was colour blind. With assistance from the Board, the matter was resolved when the agency agreed to carry out an on-the-job test of the man’s ability to perform the work required. The man passed this test and was accepted as eligible for employment.

• Complaint lacking in substance
  A man lodged a complaint with the Board, alleging that at the end of a non-work related disagreement with a co-worker and former friend, a derogatory comment was made about the man’s worker’s compensation history. He alleged that a comment made by the same co-worker in their common ethnic language was race discrimination. The man agreed that the statement was not made to him or about him and that he hadn’t been offended by the comment prior to lodging the complaint. He was unable to provide specific details about the circumstances in which the statement was made, or the names of people who may have witnessed the statement being made. The employer said that they had investigated the man’s allegations. They indicated that the co-worker, while not denying that the argument had taken place, did deny making the specific comment attributed to him. The employer was not able to find witnesses who had heard the comment. The employer arranged for the parties to meet with a mediator in an effort to repair their working relationship. The co-worker offered the man an apology for anything that was said during the argument that had upset him. The apology was not accepted.
  
  Outcome
  After investigating the complaint at the Board, the President decided that the complaint was ‘lacking in substance’ for a number of reasons.
  1. That the man was unable to offer any evidence to corroborate the claim that the comments were made.
  2. That even if the man was able to prove that the comment was made, it is unlikely, being aware of all of the circumstances, that the comment about the man’s worker’s compensation history, would amount to unlawful discrimination.
  3. In relation to the comments with racial connotations, the race discrimination provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act only allow a person to make a complaint about harassment, if they have been subjected to a detriment. The man acknowledged that he had not suffered a detriment because of the racial comment.
  
  When a complaint has been declined as lacking in substance by the Board, the person has a right to have the matter sent to the Equal Opportunity Division of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal for a hearing. In this case the man did not ask the President to do this, recognising that the employer had dealt with the complaint in an appropriate manner.

• Customer service officer's back injury
  A woman was a customer service officer for a manufacturing company. She alleged that after injuring her back she was refused permission to sit rather than stand at the customer service counter, was denied treatment for her injury during working hours and was unable to access locations for staff functions. She was also disciplined for allegedly not performing her duties adequately and her employment was terminated. She complained to the Board. The employer disputed which job she had been employed to do, and said that she was terminated because of poor performance not because of her disability. The complaint was resolved when the employer agreed to pay the woman $2,500.

• Outdoor hand's ability to perform certain tasks
  An outdoor hand sustained a prior work injury and was consequently on restricted duties. He lodged a complaint with the Board, alleging that his supervisor verbally abused during a meeting between him, his employer and his rehabilitation provider, about his ability to perform certain tasks. The complaint was resolved when the man and the supervisor exchanged statements of regret regarding their verbal exchange during the meeting.

• Job applicant with hepatitis C
  A woman applied for employment with a government agency, in a position where some medical testing was required. She had the required tests and in the process it was revealed that she tested positive for hepatitis C, which she had apparently contracted from a blood transfusion some 20 years earlier. The woman supplied the testing information to the employer and they allowed her to begin training for the position while further tests were done. When this revealed that she was infectious the employer refused to admit her to the next stage of training, on the grounds that she would be unable to fulfil the full range of duties required of the position. The woman lodged a complaint of disability discrimination. She said the employer should have had a policy on Hepatitis C and told her in the beginning that she would not be eligible. She would then have avoided getting her hopes up, spending several months in training and paying for further medical tests. The employer said that they were not prepared to change their decision. The matter was resolved when the employer agreed to assist the woman to find a position in a related area where her medical condition would not be an issue.

• HIV status and sick leave
  A man worked as a book editor in a publishing house. He disclosed to his employer that he was HIV positive and that he sometimes need to take sick leave if he was unwell or needed treatment. He said that the employer initially reacted well, but began to ask questions about his health that he felt were overly intrusive. Eventually he was retrenched and lodged a complaint of HIV/AIDS discrimination when he found an ad for a job which he regarded as similar to the one he had been doing. The employer said they had not offered this new job to the man because it paid less and they didn’t think he would want it. The matter was resolved when the employer agreed to pay the man $6,000.

• Chemotherapy treatment
  A woman was employed as an assistant manager at a store. She was diagnosed with cancer and was absent from work while receiving chemotherapy treatment. She alleged that on her return to work, her manager was unsupportive and unsympathetic to her condition, and created a hostile working environment. This treatment included rostering her to work in a different store, reprimanding her because she was unable to predict the days she would need to visit the hospital for treatment, and denigrating her work performance to management. The matter was resolved in a conciliation conference at the Board when the woman was provided with an apology from the company, a commitment to undertake training for managers, and mediation in order to restore a professional working relationship.

• Workplace injury
  A kitchen hand suffered a workplace injury and was unable to perform the duties of his position. He alleged that the employer appointed him to a new position after a restructuring and downsizing of the industry, but later terminated his employment. He complained to the Board about disability and age discrimination. The employer denied this, saying that the employee’s work was part of a rehabilitation program which could not continue. They said he was terminated from his employment because he could no longer carry out the duties for which he was employed. The employer did not appear to have considered whether there were facilities that could have been provided to help the man perform the inherent requirements of his position. During a conciliation conference at the Board, the man accepted an ex-gratia payment of $7,500 to settle the matter.

• Mental illness and leave without pay
  A man had a mental illness and had worked for a large company for a number of years. When he had an episode of illness, he asked his employer for leave without pay, which was granted to him. But when he requested another period of leave, this was refused. When he was unable to come back to work, the company declared that he’d abandoned his employment and he was dismissed. When the man complained to the Board, the employer said that they had a clear policy to terminate any staff who had taken more than a certain amount of leave. The man also alleged that when he was fit to work again he approached the company to ask if he could have his job back, and was told that there were no positions at that time, and it would be too difficult to re-train him. He alleged that this was because of his illness, although the company denied this. The matter was settled when the employer apologised to the man, changed its policy on leave without pay, and paid him a considerable sum of financial compensation. The company also made an offer of reinstatement, which the man declined.

• Inherent requirements of a position
  A security guard, who sustained a workplace injury, was placed on a rehabilitation program, but was later terminated from his employment under the statutory provisions of the Worker's Compensation Act. He claimed that his employer did not make genuine attempts to rehabilitate him and assigned him tasks that were not suitable to his restrictions. He said he was still capable of performing security work with some minor limitations and was now employed with another employer. The employer acknowledged that it had not considered whether the man could perform the inherent requirements of the job prior to terminating his employment. The complaint was settled when the man accepted an ex-gratia payment of $13,000.

• Permanent restricted duties
  A man with a work-related back injury, alleged that he was denied appointment to a more senior position by his employer because he was on permanent restricted duties, despite his being the recommended applicant. The complaint was conciliated at the Board when the employer agreed to reinstate the man's promotion and to backdate the promotion to the time of his selection, subject to any rights of appeal by other unsuccessful applicants. The employer also agreed to pay the man $4,000.

• Moderate hearing loss
  A woman with moderate hearing loss, worked as a welfare worker. When her position was made redundant she applied for two new positions within the organisation, but her applications were not successful. In a complaint to the Board, she alleged that the convenor of the interview panel spoke to her in an inappropriately loud voice and used inappropriate body language when she requested that some questions be repeated. She also alleged that inadequate arrangements were made to accommodate her disability during the interviews. She further alleged that she had been constructively dismissed by her employer because the new positions were essentially the same as the position she held. The matter was resolved by a payment of $2,000.

• Selection process
  A woman applied for a position as sales manager at a store. The job interviewer knew the woman, and knew she had suffered a heart attack the previous year. The woman didn’t end up getting the job. The woman complained to the Board about disability discrimination. During a conciliation conference at the Board, the woman accepted that the decision-making process had not taken her disability into account. The matter was resolved with financial compensation ($500) for injury to the woman’s feelings.

• Previously employed
  A man alleged that he wasn’t re-employed by his previous employer because of a past injury in the workplace and a subsequent worker's compensation claim. The employer denied the allegations. The matter was resolved at the Board when the employer explained the recruitment process and agreed to nominate a contact person to act as referee for any future applications, and to provide the man with a statement of service.

• Employee with a stutter
  A man alleged that he was subjected to ongoing harassment from his immediate supervisor who repeatedly humiliated him because of his stutter. The man lodged a complaint of disability discrimination with the Board. The complaint was resolved at a conciliation conference at the Board with the employee agreeing to pay the man an ex-gratia payment of $13,000 for pain and suffering, provide him with a statement of employment, an apology, and an undertaking to train all staff.

• Casual job assignments
  A man complained to the Board after he was allegedly refused casual job assignments and the opportunity to be considered for permanency because of his disability. At a conciliation conference at the Board, the employer denied the allegations, stating that he didn’t allocate work to the man because of his obligations of duty of care under occupational health and safety law. The matter was resolved when the employer agreed to pay the man a total of $3,560 net for loss of wages, and provide him with a statement of employment.

• Physical and psychological injuries
  A woman, who was employed as a security guard sustained physical and psychological injuries at work. She alleged that after sustaining these injuries she was subjected to harassment and discrimination by her co-workers and management. This included attempts to undermine her rehabilitation plan, assigning her to perform inappropriate tasks, and failing to provide her with the required services and facilities to do her job. At a conciliation conference at the Board, she accepted a $6,250 ex-gratia payment from her employer, a statement of regret, and an agreement that the employer would review their policies and procedures relating to employees who were the victims of work-related incidents. She also alleged that she was discriminated against by officers and representatives of her union. This included lack of assistance and support with her return to work program, and being verbally abused on several occasions by union delegates because she could not carry out certain duties due to her injuries. In settlement of this complaint, the woman accepted a $5,000 ex-gratia payment, a written apology, a review of the union’s grievance procedure, and publication in the union’s newspaper of an article on responsibilities of delegates regarding complaints of discrimination.

• Spinal surgery
  A man applied for employment as a driver, undergoing a medical assessment as part of the recruitment process. After considering the medical report, the employer advised the man that they could not employ him because they thought he was too much of a safety risk. The man made a complaint of disability discrimination to the Board. He said that he’d undergone spinal surgery 30 years ago, and this did not affect his ability as a driver. The man advised that he had previous experience and had held various classes of licences. Since applying for employment with the employer, the man had obtained employment with another company as a driver. The complaint was resolved when the man accepted a payment of $4250 to settle the matter.

• No further work
  A man was employed by a recruitment agency on a casual basis. The recruitment agency in turn provided labour to another employer on a casual labour hire arrangement. The man was assigned to work by the recruitment agency with this employer. Following a few months of working under this arrangement, the employer offered him full-time employment and encouraged him to apply to be directly employed with them. The man alleged that after completing a medical assessment the employer failed to provide him with any further work. The man alleged that during the medical assessment the doctor advised him that he had a hernia. The recruitment company asserted that it had not discriminated against him as it had not dismissed him and it had continued to offer him other work assignments. The employer asserted that the man was not offered the full-time position with them because he was unable to safely carry out the inherent requirements of employment. The complaint was finalised at conciliation when the man accepted $3,000 in settlement of his complaint. As it turned out, he did not in fact have a hernia and obtained full-time work with another employer shortly afterwards.

• Allegations of staff harassment
  The complainant was a young man with an intellectual disability who was ejected from a store by a security guard. He said he was told that he had been harassing the staff and there had been complaints about him.
  
  A relative who wrote the complaint on his behalf said that when she contacted the store she received conflicting accounts of what had happened, none of which were very convincing. She said that her relative was a very quiet person who was now reluctant to go into a store on his own.
  
  The store’s management said that the man had been asked to leave the store because he was swearing at a security guard. They said the store had an EEO and harassment policy and did not tolerate discrimination towards customers.
  
  The complaint was resolved when the store apologised to the complainant and said he was welcome in the store. They also agreed to send the staff involved in the complaint to training about discrimination.

• Wheelchair accessible cabs
  A woman with paraplegia, who uses a wheelchair, lodged a complaint with the Board. She said that when she rang to book a taxi, she was advised that people who require wheelchair-accessible cabs must make advance bookings. The complaint was resolved at the Board with an apology from the manager and the distribution of a new policy to all booking operators.

• Treatment at a dental clinic
  A man living with HIV complained to the Board that he received segregated treatment at a dental clinic. The complaint was settled when the clinic agreed to review their policy by setting up a working party to look at dental treatment of people with HIV.

• Queue at a bank
  A man suffered from severe pain when he had to stand for any length of time. He lodged a complaint with the Board against his local bank because he had to queue in line to receive services from the bank teller. The complaint was resolved when a procedure was set in place where the man now goes to the information desk, which then holds a place for him in the teller’s queue so that he doesn’t have to stand.

• Multiple disabilities
  A woman with multiple disabilities alleged that a pharmacist told her to leave his pharmacy because she needed assistance reading the product labels and that he thought she was wasting his staff’s time. In a conciliation conference at the Board, the pharmacist denied evicting the woman from the pharmacy on the ground of disability. He said that staff had told him that the woman would regularly go to the pharmacy and loiter around beauty and nail products for up to an hour without buying anything. He said that his staff were suspicious of the woman’s behaviour and were concerned for the security of the stock. He said that on the day in question, the woman was asked on several occasions if she needed assistance, which she declined. It was not in dispute that on the day of the alleged incident the woman walked out of the pharmacy with products that she had not paid for after the pharmacist refused to sell them to her. The parties agreed to settle the matter when the woman accepted an ex-gratia payment of $1000 and agreed not to return to the pharmacy.

• Psychiatric disability
  A man with a psychiatric disability attended a service that provided activities and meals. An incident occurred between the man and the manager of the centre when the manager alleged that the man was abusive. He was then banned from the centre except for meals. He made a complaint of disability discrimination to the Board. He said that the reason his manner may have changed during the incident was because he was hungry and this affected his mental state because of his disability. The complaint was resolved after the Board contacted the service and they agreed to allow the man to return for a trial period.

• Accommodation of wheelchairs in a theatre
  A woman, who used a motorised wheelchair, booked to see a theatrical performance with her carer. In a complaint to the Board, she alleged that the theatre company made inadequate arrangements to accommodate patrons in wheelchairs. As a result she was not able to enter the theatre until after the first act. She said that the space available for wheelchairs in the theatre was not adequate and parts of the theatre were not wheelchair accessible. The matter was resolved at the Board when the theatre company and the lessee of the building agreed to:
  • train staff in disability awareness;
  • review procedures;
  • review and upgrade their signage;
  • review disabled parking facilities;
  • update their website for information on disabled access;
  • develop and prioritise strategies to improve disabled access; and
  • engage a consultant to assess these strategies in order to remove all barriers to disabled access.

• Change of hearing venue
  A single mother with two young children with disabilities complained to the Board that she had been discriminated against on the ground of disability by association by a specialist tribunal. She wanted to present her case in person, but alleged she could not comply with the tribunal’s requirement for her to attend the listed hearing venue because of her children’s disabilities. Her request for a venue closer to home was refused. The complaint was resolved at the Board when the woman’s request was reconsidered and the matter was re-listed at a venue closer to the woman’s residence.

• Man with autism
  A young man with autism was a frequent customer of a fast food outlet. He alleged that on one occasion after being provided with a receipt, he noticed that the words ‘freak-boy’ had been written as the customer identification. He complained to the Board, saying that this incident had had a significant affect on his self-confidence and that it had also been a setback to the development of his social skills. The matter was resolved when the man accepted a personal apology and $4,000 to settle the matter.

• Pre-booked tickets
  A couple had disabilities that severely impair their mobility. One is paraplegic and requires the use of a wheelchair; the other suffers from a muscular degenerative disorder and requires the use of callipers. They are both unable to climb stairs and require disabled access to entertainment venues. They allege that a third party ticketing agency, discriminated against them on the ground of disability in the provision of goods and services. When trying to pre-book tickets to an entertainment event, they were advised that tickets for disabled seating could not be pre-booked through their agency because disabled seats are only made available by the various venues on the general release date of the tickets.
  
  The couple accepted this explanation but indicated that they were frustrated by the service’s web site which gave misleading information. With the assistance of the Board the couple agreed to settle the matter. They accepted the ticketing agency’s offer of free tickets to a show of their choice, and an undertaking to correct the misleading information on its web site.

• Suitable accommodation
  Tenants of a housing provider complained to the Board that their current accommodation was cold, damp and mouldy, and that they could not live there because they had asthma and arthritis. They alleged that their landlord should have been able to transfer them to more suitable accommodation, but that their various requests for transfer had not resulted in a more suitable property being identified. The housing provider said that they’d done everything possible to try to accommodate the tenants’ request but that suitable properties were simply not available in the right location. The matter was resolved at the Board when the parties agreed to detail the tenants’ specific housing needs and place them on the list for priority transfer.

• Mobility impairment
  A woman had a mobility disability and she used a motorised scooter. She alleged that her landlord discriminated against her when he ignored her continual requests for repairs to the gate at the front of the property. She said that the gate had a tendency to jam in the closed position, and she could not reopen it because of her disability. She had to rely on other residents in the complex to open it for her. The matter was resolved when with some advice from the Board, the woman formalised her complaint to the landlord in writing. The gate was repaired in a matter of days from the receipt of her written complaint.

• Chronic illness
  A man suffered from a chronic illness and was unable to obtain effective medical treatment in Australia. He needed to stay in a hospital in another country for about 5-6 months. He alleged to the Board that he was discriminated against because of his disability when his housing provider refused his request for leave of absence from his accommodation. He further alleged that the housing provider was applying its policy on leave of absence in a too restrictive and discriminatory fashion. As a result of a conciliation conference at the Board, the housing provider agreed to grant leave to the man without any further demands for independent medical assessments.

• Hearing impaired students
  The Board received two complaints of disability discrimination against the same education provider, both from people who were hearing impaired. In the first case, the institution provided an interpreter for the student but this interpreter only signed in English and the person preferred to use Auslan. The student dropped out of the course. This complaint was resolved at the Board when the education provider agreed to acknowledge Auslan as the primary language of adult deaf people, to provide an Auslan interpreter where possible for exams and assessments, and to provide other services as required.
  
  In the second case, the student said he was told by a staff member that he was taking on too big a load when he wanted to undertake a fulltime course plus one additional subject from another course. He said he thought it was his right to make this judgment and the staff member was putting him down. The complaint at the Board was resolved when the institution agreed to provide interpreters throughout the student’s course, and to let all students know about a local advocacy service which could negotiate with the institution’s disability consultant to quickly resolve problems of the type the student experienced.

• Learning environment
  A boy’s parents lodged a complaint with the Board on behalf of their son, who had a number of psychological, emotional and organic disabilities. They alleged that the education provider refused to take their son’s disabilities seriously enough, and did not support him in his learning environment based on his doctor’s recommendations. They also alleged that the education provider failed to implement an individual educational plan that was tailored to their son’s needs. The complaint was resolved at the Board when both sides committed to a written agreement that specified the actions to be taken by each party in order to meet the child’s educational needs.

• Miscommunication
  A woman alleged that she was discriminated against because of her psychiatric disability when the disability support unit of her tertiary institution did not provide her with an adequate level of service to enable her to continue her studies. She was enrolled in two courses at separate campuses. She alleged that she was provided with an adequate level of support at one campus, but this was not the case at the other. The tertiary institution said that they had tried to implement an appropriate level of support for the student, but miscommunication between the parties had meant that consultation was delayed and the woman discontinued the course at that campus before this was finalised. The matter was resolved when the institution agreed to review their procedures for providing disability support, and provide the woman with a statement of regret and an ex-gratia payment of $2,000.

• Below-the-knee amputee
  A woman, who was a below-the-knee amputee with a prosthesis, was a member of a registered club. She alleged that the club discriminated against her on the ground of disability when it refused to provide her with further alcoholic drinks because an officer of the club assumed she was drunk, as she seemed to be unsteady on her feet. She said that she then complained to the club’s management about the treatment and told them that she only had one leg, another staff member laughed at her. The matter was resolved at the Board when the club gave a written undertaking to conduct staff training on discrimination issues.

• Discriminated for being openly homosexual

  A branch manager of a community organisation involved in the delivery of health education programs and activities alleged that he was unlawfully discriminated against when its CEO directed him to remove himself from direct involvement in the delivery of one of its services programs. He alleged that this direction had been given to him because he was male and openly homosexual. The CEO denied that this was the reason and asserted that the education program was peer based and as such, should not have been directly facilitated by the branch manager. The organisation asserted that the direction was given to ensure that its programs were delivered in an appropriate manner. They argued that this was particularly important given a number of recent complaints about the program which had given rise to considerations of duty of care to its clients and management of potential associated risks. The matter was resolved when the respondent agreed to provide the complainant with a written reference.
  

• Harrassment at work

  A clerk alleged that his employer unlawfully discriminated against him on the ground of imputed homosexuality in the area of employment and also that it victimised him when it allowed him to be subjected to continued harassment by his supervisor and co-workers. He alleged this harassment included unwelcome comments such as referring to him as ‘gay boy’ and ‘chock topper’. The clerk alleged that following a complaint to management his supervisor increased scrutiny of his work. The clerk stated that he simply wanted his employer to take action to stop the conduct of these employees. The matter was resolved when the respondent provided the complainant with a written commitment of its support for anti-discrimination, harassment and victimisation and an undertaking to provide training in this area to its employees.
  

• Investigation and suspension from work
  A gay man, working at a recreational facility, alleged that he was harassed by members of staff, who referred to him in an offensive manner including “poofter”, “cocksucker” and “turd-burglar”. He also alleged that when he complained about an offensive comment in a staff communication, he was subjected to an investigation and suspended from work. He told the Board that his action in complaining to management had led to a witch-hunt against him because he was homosexual. The complaint was settled when the man agreed to accept a payment of $6,000.

• Sexual preference
  A woman, working in a branch office of a financial institution, alleged that she was harassed by the assistant manager in relation to her sexual preference. After an argument in which the woman swore at the assistant manager, she was allowed to resign from her position instead of being terminated. She lodged a complaint of homosexual discrimination with the Board using the support of her trade union. She also alleged that the financial institution failed to properly investigate her claim of harassment by the assistant manager. The employer denied the allegations and said that there had been ongoing problems with the woman’s poor performance including swearing. At the time of making the complaint the woman had begun working in a different section of the financial institution through an employment agency. The matter was resolved at the Board when the employer agreed to make the woman a permanent employee in her current position.

• Working environment
  A lesbian, who was employed in the welfare area, lodged complaints of homosexual discrimination, sexual harassment and victimisation with the Board. She alleged that due to the behaviour of a particular female colleague, a working environment developed at her office that was hostile to homosexual people. The behaviour included lewd jokes and comments about homosexual people and lesbians in particular, which were often directed at her. She also alleged that at an office Christmas party she was given a candle in the shape of a penis. After complaining to management about the alleged treatment, she later discovered that all her belongings had been packed into a box whilst she was on leave, and that cartoons depicting sexual acts had been packed in with her belongings. Following this incident, she then received written advice that her transfer request had been approved, even though she had not requested one. The woman sought an apology, reassurance and general damages from the employer. At a conciliation conference at the Board, the parties came to an undisclosed private settlement of the complaint.

• Agreement to provide training
  A man working in the recruitment industry, alleged that he was treated less favourably because of his homosexuality by many staff at the company, including his managers. He said that when he complained about this, his complaints were dismissed or were not followed up appropriately by management. He also alleged that he was victimised by being dismissed from his employment. The matter was settled at the Board by a payment of $9,000, $6,000 of which was paid to a charitable organisation in which the man worked as a volunteer. The employer also agreed to provide training for all its staff on discrimination and harassment issues.

• Problems with members and guests of a registered club
  A gay man employed at a registered club, alleged that he was harassed by members and guests. He said that although he had recorded a number of incidents in the club's incident book, these were not adequately dealt with by management. He also claimed that he was threatened with legal action by a board member after one incident he recorded. He had taken time off work for stress leave and did not feel able to return to the workplace. In a conciliation conference at the Board, the man explained to the employer that he had come to the Board only because the complaint processes used by the club were not effective in dealing with the harassment he had complained about, and he would have preferred to resolve the matter directly with his employer. The matter was resolved with the payment of $10,000 to the man in exchange for his signing a deed of release. The club has sought assistance from the Board in reviewing its discrimination and harassment policies and grievance procedure, and has made enquiries about training for staff and board members.

• Difficulties with a neighbour
  A man renting a house through a housing corporation was being harassed by his neighbour because of his homosexuality. The neighbour had written graffiti about the man’s sexuality on his fence. The man had complained to the housing corporation for years, but without success. After the man lodged a complaint with the Board, we wrote to the housing corporation. The corporation agreed to transfer the man to another property that was of the same standard.

• Implementation of a new customer policy
  A man went to a hotel to buy some cigarettes. The attendant refused to serve him, calling him a ‘faggot’. The man complained to the Board, who then contacted the licensee of the hotel. The man agreed to meet with the licensee and the licensee agreed to implement a policy so that all refusals of service would be referred to him first. The licensee also apologised to the man.

• Ejection from a club