Conciliation Register

The complainant uses a wheelchair and prebooked a taxi. He alleged the respondent taxi driver advised him they could not carry a wheelchair user. The complainant claimed that on contacting the respondent taxi company to book a wheelchair accessible taxi, his mother was told passengers requesting wheelchair accessible taxis were required to pay a $35 fee.

The taxi driver and the taxi company said there may have been some miscommunication on the day and indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the taxi company to develop disability awareness training for drivers in consultation with the complainant. The taxi driver agreed to participate in the training once developed and to pay the complainant $150.

The complainant has an assistance dog and alleged she was told by the respondent holiday accommodation provider that an additional fee would apply if she booked a stay with her assistance animal.

The holiday accommodation provider acknowledged that an additional fee applied to guests with pets.

The complaint was resolved after the holiday accommodation provider allowed the complainant to book at the standard rate on being provided with information to substantiate that the complainant’s dog is an assistance animal.

The complainant has Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and uses an assistance dog. She claimed that when her employer, the respondent state government corporation, transitioned to “hot-desking", she requested adjustments that included an anchor desk, regular contact with her manager, and to be accompanied by her assistance dog in the office. She alleged her requests were refused or not properly implemented and that she was told that PTSD is “easy to fix” so she should just “fix it”. The complainant said her health deteriorated as a result and she felt she had no option but to resign.

The state government corporation claimed it had properly accommodated the complainant’s disability when it transitioned to “hot-desking” arrangements.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the state government corporation pay the complainant $22,500 as general damages.

The complainant and their partner identify as non-binary. They alleged that when making a booking with the respondent airline, they were required to use binary gender and honorific options.

The respondent airline acknowledged the complainant's experience and limitations of the online booking system for non-binary passengers. The airline explained that it was difficult to update its booking system as it was connected to other business systems, not all of which may be associated with the airline. Following a review of its systems, the airline outlined the stages and timeline the improving the airline’s systems to provide non-binary/gender neutral options across all of its systems and processes. The airline updated its online booking system so that passengers will have the ability to select “undisclosed” as a gender option and “MX” as an honorific. 

The complainant considered the complaint resolved based on the actions taken by the airline in response to the complaint.

The complainant’s mother is 100 years of age and has a health insurance policy with the respondent insurer. The complainant alleged the insurer’s claims system did not recognise a triple-digit age and that she was told her mother would need to make a claim manually by taking a photo of the receipt with her smartphone or scanning the receipt. The complainant said her mother does not own a scanner or mobile phone.

In response to the complaint the insurer apologised to the complainant and her mother for the inability of their claim system to recognise triple-digit age information and the inconvenience this caused to the complainant’s mother. The insurer updated its system to recognise triple-number age information. The complainant and her mother considered the complaint resolved on this basis.

The complainant uses a wheelchair and alleged he was unable to book a flight with the respondent airline at his preferred time because assistance for passengers who use a wheelchair was unavailable.

The airline claimed that assistance for passengers who use a wheelchair was available for the flight the complainant wanted to book.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the airline pay the complainant $1,000 as compensation for the additional cost of booking the flight with a different airline.

The complainant is blind. He alleged he fell and injured himself while boarding a bus operated by the respondent council because it stopped too far from the bus stop. He said that when he contacted council to request CCTV footage of the incident, the respondent staff member directed him to make his request using an online form, despite the complainant explaining this would be difficult for him because he is blind.

The council denied discriminating against the complainant.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the council pay the complainant $3,500.

The complainant has Attention-Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder and Persistent Depressive Disorder and works as a distance education teacher with the respondent government department. He alleged the department declined his request to work from home to accommodate his disability on the basis that he had not provided sufficient evidence to support his request.

On being notified of the complaint, the department indicated it would be open to allow the complainant to work from home to accommodate his disability, so long as the adjustments did not prevent the complainant from performing the inherent requirements of his role or cause unjustifiable hardship to the Department.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the department write to the complainant expressing its regret for the events giving rise to the complaint and pay him $7,500 as general damages. The department also agreed that its senior managers would undertake e-learning modules on managing staff with disability.

The complainant is non-binary and alleged the respondent airline’s booking system required the use of binary gender information.

The airline said aspects of the business, such as feedback forms and announcements, had been updated to be more gender inclusive, but changes to the booking system would be technical and complex and impact on other internal systems.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the airline that non-binary/gender neutral options would be available across all its systems and processes. The airline said that the booking system would allow customers to select “undisclosed” when asked about gender and to use “Mx” as a prefix.

The complainant was employed as a disability support worker with the respondent home care service provider. She said she took sick leave during the second and third trimesters of her pregnancy due to pregnancy-related medical complications. She alleged that when she sought to access parental leave, the service issued her with a separation certificate, stating the complainant had voluntarily ceased working for the service while on leave. The complainant said she never sought to resign.

The service claimed the complainant had voluntarily left her casual position for medical reasons and had provided a medical certificate stating she was unfit for duties.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the service pay the complainant $15,000 as general damages.

The complainant wears a badge identifying that they have a vision impairment. The complainant alleged that two staff from the respondent security company stopped him as he approached the checkout counter of the respondent grocery store for a bag check. The complainant alleged the security staff spoke to them in an aggressive and intimidating manner and did not identify themselves despite the complainant complying with the bag check.

The respondents denied discriminating against the complainant.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondents make a joint payment to the complainant of $1,500.

The complainant is blind and alleged the respondent bar refused her entry because she was accompanied by a guide dog.

The complaint was resolved when, in response to the complaint, the bar apologised to the complainant for her experience, delivered training to staff and managers on their obligations towards patrons with assistance animals and updated its operations manual.

The complainant was employed as a marketing manager with the respondent real estate agency. She alleged the owner and two sales agents sexually harassed her, including by making comments of a sexual nature towards her and about other women in her presence. The complainant said she felt she had no option but to resign. She alleges that when she told the office manager she was resigning because she was sexually harassed, the office manager told her that if she made a formal external complaint, she would not be “hireable”. The complainant gained employment with a different respondent real estate agency and alleged she was made redundant once she disclosed her allegations of sexual harassment in her previous workplace.

On being informed of the complaint, the respondents denied the allegations but agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondents jointly pay the complainant $45,000 as general damages and provide an outline of training delivered to their staff on sexual harassment.

The complainant alleged that the respondent not-for-profit organisation denied her request to work from home during school holidays to enable her to care for her three children. She alleged she was told she would not be able to meet the requirements of her role while looking after her children.

The organisation claimed the complainant’s role required her to be present in the office.

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The organisation agreed to pay the complainant $6,000 as general damages.