Termination/decline decisions: Sport
Summaries of decisions by Disability Discrimination Commissioner or delegate to decline complaints, and of the President of HREOC or delegate reviewing such decisions; or (from 13 April 2000) decisions by the President or delegate to terminate complaints. Last updated: 12 December 2000
No discrimination found in Paralympic classification
An athlete complained that he had been discriminated against when he was classified as not having a sufficient level of disability to meet the requirements of a sporting event he wished to participate in. The President terminated the complaint. She considered that the athlete had been excluded not because he had a disability but because he did not have the particular level of disability required, and noted that a person without any disability would have been similarly excluded. No direct discrimination had therefore occurred. Regarding indirect discrimination, for the complaint to succeed the complainant would have to show that he was required to comply with a requirement or condition; that he could not or did not comply with it; that persons without his disability could comply with it; and that the requirement or condition was not reasonable. She found there was a requirement or condition of satisfying the classification criteria, which the complainant could not comply with, but that persons without the complainant's disability could not comply with it either. Further, having regard to its purpose the requirement or condition was reasonable. The President also noted that in any event the defence under section 28(3) of the DDA appeared directly applicable. This section confirms that there is no unlawful act where a person has been excluded from a sporting activity which is conducted only for persons with a particular disability and the person does not have that particular disability. (June 2000)
Ban on sighting device for bowler not unlawful discrimination
A man with a visual disability complained that he had been discriminated against by Bowls Australia's refusal to permit him to use an eyeglass of his own devising in the game of bowls. The President confirmed the Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner's decision to decline the complaint. She noted evidence from the complanant's optometrist that his visual disability was able to be corrected by the use of spectacles, which were permitted for use in bowls (29 July 1998).
No unlawful discrimination in prohibition on harness tying rider to horse
A woman with a disability complained that she had been prohibited from competitive horse riding using a "seat belt harness", an upper body harness fixed at four points to the saddle. The President decided, confirming a decision by the delegate of the Disability Discrimination Commissioner, that this was not unlawful discrimination under the DDA. He found that the respondents had legitimate concerns about the safety implications of tying a rider to a horse, and that the rules applicable in other countries reflected the same concern. He noted that subject to the rules riders were permitted to make other adjustments to their equipment and use aids or devices necessary to facilitate their participation in the sport (22 February 1996).
Application of dress requirements not unlawful
The President decided, confirming a decision by the Disability Discrimination Commissioner, that a refusal to waive a rule requiring women in a sporting competition to wear socks if they wore shorts did not involve unlawful discrimination against a woman with diabetes and related disabilities. (These disabilities made it uncomfortable for her to wear socks.) The rules had not been applied in a discriminatory fashion, and permitted alternative dress which did not involve socks (28 August 1995).