A recent case before the Administrative Decisions Tribunal has ruled that addiction to methadone constitutes a disability. The complainant, a labourer with the Botany Bay Council, alleged he was forced to resign his position after his addiction to methadone was publicly revealed at his workplace.

The complainant had been on a registered methadone program for over four years. His employer and colleagues were unaware of his addiction. In late June and early July 2002, two containers of methadone were discovered and placed in his pigeonhole on display to other staff. The labels on the containers identified the complainant as the prescribed user.

Following this incident, a meeting was held by his employer to which the complainant was barred from attending. At the meeting, his colleagues and managers openly discussed his methadone addiction and speculated on his HIV/AIDS status.

Following the meeting, the complainant was advised that he would be immediately transferred from his workplace to another site. He was not given a reason for the transfer until two weeks later. As he was the only employee to be transferred, the applicant viewed his transfer as a punishment.

On arrival at his new workplace, his new supervisor gave him a needle disposal bucket for his personal use at work, which upset the complainant. Two weeks later, he was advised that his hours of work had been cut to 28 hours per week, from a prior workload of 56 hours per week.

At the end of July the complainant was rostered for less than the agreed number of hours, as specified in his contract of employment. He did not receive an explanation for the reduction in his hours.

A conciliation conference was held between the Council and the complainant in August. Following this, the complainant again experienced discrimination, which he felt was a result of lodging a formal complaint with the Anti-Discrimination Board. As a consequence of this treatment, the complainant resigned.

After his resignation, he received a letter from the respondent which stated, ‘we can only assume you have commenced your claim in order to secure moneys from the Council which you would otherwise not be entitled to’.

The Tribunal was asked to decide on the preliminary issue of whether addiction to methadone constituted an addiction under NSW legislation. The respondent sought to have the complaint dismissed as outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, by referring to the NSW Attorney General Bob Debus’ s Second Reading speech, which stated that ‘drug addicts’ were not covered by the legislation.

The Tribunal found that the contents of the speech could only be considered if there was an element of uncertainty in the law. In the case before it, however, there was no ambiguity. After examining recent caselaw and the Anti-Discrimination (Drug Addiction Bill) 2001 (NSW), the Tribunal found that the complainant’s addiction to methadone was a disability under s 4(1).

The respondent argued that as the complainant did not display any disabling symptoms during the period of the alleged discrimination, the addiction did not constitute a disability under the Act. The Tribunal found that ‘the fact that a person who suffers from a disorder feels “normal” and is able to lead a “normal life” while taking appropriate treatment does not mean that she or he no longer has a disability within the meaning of the Act.’

The Tribunal also found there was a further complaint of imputed disability relating to the presumption of the complainant’s HIV status. The Tribunal found that the contents of the Council’s letter could be admitted into evidence, as it was not part of the conciliation process, and constituted part of the repondent’s discriminatory behaviour.

The Tribunal ordered the matter be listed for resolution at a case conference.