Case studies – conciliated complaints under the ADA
Following is a selection of case studies of conciliated complaints of age discrimination. Other case studies of complaints conciliated by HREOC are available in the conciliation register.
Discrimination in recruitment
Richard, who is 55
years of age, applied for a graduate Information Technology position with a
large government department via a private employment agency. Despite having
worked for the department for ten years and having over 30 years relevant
experience, his application was rejected. Richard claimed the employment agency
told him that he should not be applying for graduate positions.
The department said it was unaware of
Richard’s application as it only became involved in the recruitment
process once candidates were short listed by the employment agency – and
that he had not reached that stage of the process.
The employment agency also denied
discriminating against Richard and said that data about an applicant’s age
or age group is not sought or considered relevant. The agency claimed his
application for the graduate position had been rejected because of a mistaken
understanding that he was already employed with the department at that
time.
The complaint was resolved through
conciliation with the employment agency agreeing to pay Richard $2,000 in
general damages and contribute $4,500 towards legal costs he had incurred
because of the complaint.
Discrimination in the provision of goods and services
Margaret
is an elderly woman who has a range of disabilities which put her at an
increased risk of falling. She complained that building works carried out in a
nearby street meant that the cul-de-sac where she lives was often blocked by
trucks and other machinery. This made it difficult for her to use the footpaths
around her home. She also claimed that she was harassed because of her age and
disability by builders on the site – complaints she said her local council
ignored.
In response, the council said
that it did not have direct responsibility for the building work but that
council officers had met with Margaret to discuss her concerns. The council
stated that its officers had carried out daily patrols and inspections and
issued the builders with an infringement notice on the basis of photographic
evidence provided by Margaret.
The
complaint was resolved through conciliation with the council agreeing to provide
the Margaret with a statement of regret and pay her $100 to reimburse her
photographic costs. The council also agreed to formally advise Margaret about
its procedures for responding to complaints and invited her to speak about the
impact of development activities on aged people with disabilities at the
council’s next Access and Disability Committee meeting.
Discrimination in termination of employment
Peter, who is 66,
had worked as a hairdresser with a large retail chain for over ten years prior
to the business being taken over by another company. He claimed that when the
new company started operations he was placed on a three month probationary
contract and his employment was terminated three weeks later. Peter alleged he
was dismissed because of his age and, in doing so, his employer avoided paying
him the entitlements due from his previous employment.
The company denied that Peter’s
age was a factor in terminating his employment. It said it was because of his
unsatisfactory behaviour, which included inconsistent pricing, poor workmanship,
being uncooperative and taking extended breaks. The company claimed Peter had
been counselled on several occasions and provided with a written warning.
The complaint was resolved though
conciliation, with the company providing Peter with a statement of regret and
$3,000 in general damages.
Discrimination in selection for redundancy
Gary, who is over
60, worked for a small automotive company that was taken over by new management.
He claimed that four weeks before the take over the incoming General Manager
conducted interviews with all staff. Gary claimed that during his interview the
General Manager told him that he would not be offered a position because of his
age and other reasons.
Gary said that a
few months later he was told his position was to be made redundant – the
reason being that he was the last person employed and so would be the first to
be made redundant. When Gary mentioned another person who had started after him,
the General Manager said that this person would not be made redundant as he was
younger and had a more important job.
In
response, the company’s General Manager denied making any reference about
Richard’s age in the interview and denied that age was a factor in
determining whether he would be offered a position. He maintained that
Richard’s redundancy was due to business needs and performance
issues.
The complaint was resolved
through conciliation, with the company agreeing to pay Richard $2,500 in general
damages.
