Conciliation Register

The complainant has muscular dystrophy and has difficulty walking. He alleged he was unable to access the respondent supermarket outlet because there was a high step at the front entrance and the accessible entrance was locked.

The supermarket advised that, in response to the complaint, it would keep the accessible entrance open during business hours.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the supermarket pay the complainant $5,000.

 

The complainant has a limited ability to lift weight and move his arms due to undergoing a quadruple bypass to manage a heart condition. He erected a temporary pergola in his backyard, as he was unable to operate a different type of shade structure because of his disability. He alleged the respondent owners corporation failed to approve his application for the pergola as a reasonable adjustment and directed him to remove it. The complainant also alleged the respondent strata management company was responsible for the discrimination.

The respondents claimed the complainant erected the pergola without first seeking permission to do so. They also claimed that, when he did seek permission, he failed to advise the respondents of his disability and need for that particular shade structure to accommodate his disability.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the owner's corporation grant permission for the complainant to keep the pergola subject to a review of the complainant's ongoing need for the pergola on medical grounds in six months’ time.

 

The complainant has an assistance animal to alleviate the effects of a number of disabilities, including social anxiety, Attention-Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The complainant alleged staff at the respondent grocery store told her she was not allowed in with her dog, despite her explaining it was an assistance animal. The complainant said she was ultimately served, but felt very upset.

The store owner explained he had been unaware of his obligations under federal discrimination law and served the complainant once she explained her dog was an assistance animal and should be allowed in the store.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the store owner place an ‘Assistance Dogs Welcome’ sign in his store and write to the complainant expressing regret for the incident.

The complainant has a number of medical conditions, including osteoarthritis, kidney stones, diabetes and depression. She alleged that during her employment with the respondent plant nursery, negative statements were made about her disability, including that her disability impacted negatively on her performance. The complainant claimed the nursery required her to undergo a fitness for duty process and ultimately terminated her employment.

The nursery claimed the complainant’s employment was terminated due to poor performance and not because of her disability.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the nursery pay the complainant $10,000, provide her with a statement of service and characterise the end of the employment as a resignation. The nursery also agreed to write to the complainant expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint.

 

The complainant is HIV+ and attended the respondent driving school in order to obtain a truck-driving licence. She said that she disclosed that she takes medication to manage her disability to the driving instructor while the two were driving as part of a one-to-one lesson. She alleged the instructor told her she had put the lives of everyone who had been in the truck at risk, directed her to stop the truck and get into the passenger’s seat and drove back to the driving school. The complainant alleged that when she wrote down the name of her medication on a piece of paper at the instructor’s request, he picked it up by the corner with the tips of his fingers. The complainant claimed she felt the instructor was afraid of, and disgusted, by her. The complainant said she raised concerns about what happened with the driving school but was not satisfied with the response. She said she was unable to finish her driving course or obtain her licence.

The driving school said that the government authority that accredits the driving course requires students to disclose on enrolment if they are taking any medication. If a student is taking any medication, the student must be cleared by the authority before being able to undertake the driving course. The driving school said the complainant had failed to disclose that she was on medication. The driving school said that, on finding out that the complainant was on medication, the instructor had no option but to stop the truck and drive her back to base. The driving school said the instructor denied behaving in a manner that conveyed fear or disgust towards the complainant.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the driving school refund the complainant $1,350 for the cost of the course, deliver training to all staff on the needs of students with disability and draft guidelines for instructors on how best to respond to disclosures by students that they are on medication.

The complainant is Deaf and claimed that on several occasions his bank tried to communicate with him by telephone regarding his accounts. He claimed this required him to attend a branch in person to conduct his banking or to enlist the assistance of another person to communicate with the bank by telephone, meaning he needed to disclose his personal banking security information to that person. He considered the bank should offer the option of communication by text message.

On being advised of the complaint the bank agreed to participate in a conciliation process.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the bank pay the complainant $500 and offer him personalised banking services, including a point of contact with whom he can communicate via text message.

The complainant has an intellectual disability and is non-verbal. The complainant’s advocate alleged that the respondent organisation delivering support to persons with disability required the complainant to sign a service agreement before delivering one-to-one support as set out in her NDIS plan. As the complainant did not have capacity to sign the agreement because of her disability, she was unable to receive the service.

On being advised of the complaint, the organisation agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the organisation deliver support to the complainant without the need for her to sign a service agreement on the basis that discussions about the complainant’s needs would be held between the complainant’s support coordinator, advocate and the organisation.

 

The complainant has an assistance animal that assists in managing an anxiety disorder. She alleged a staff member at the respondent café, where she was breakfasting with her family,  told her she had to take her dog outside, despite the dog wearing a harness identifying it as an assistance animal. The complainant alleged the staff member’s aggressive manner led other patrons to become aggressive towards her and her experiencing a panic attack.

The café claimed the complainant’s dog was not wearing a jacket, was on an extendable lead and was roaming around the café, jumping up and sniffing other patrons and their food. The café claimed the staff member asked the complainant to demonstrate the dog was an assistance animal and under her control. The café denied the staff member was aggressive towards the complainant.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that a photo of the complainant and her dog be placed in the café’s staff room so that staff are familiar with them. The café’s owner undertook to hold a staff meeting to discuss the incident giving rise to the complaint and to provide the complainant with his phone number should she experience any problems in the future.

 

The complainant has Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and other cognitive impairments and resided in community housing operated by the respondent non-government organisation. He said he found it difficult to complete forms, write letters or understand lengthy written information because of his disability. He alleged staff of the organisation refused to provide him with assistance to lodge complaints about his property or to allow him to record conversations in order to have an accurate record of those conversations. He claimed his tenancy became untenable and he had no option but to end his tenancy arrangement, rendering him homeless. The complainant was unable to apply for alternative public or community housing because he was in debt to the organisation.

The community housing provider claimed that its staff provided assistance to the complainant to lodge complaints and raise concerns about his tenancy. The organisation said it had attempted to discourage the complainant from ending his tenancy but was unsuccessful.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the community housing provider waive the complainant’s debt of approximately $3,700 and refund his $1,400 bond. The organisation also undertook to ensure staff continue to provide assistance to tenants with disability who experience difficulties in completing forms or other documents related to their tenancy. Finally, the organisation agreed to remind staff of obligations to provide reasonable adjustments to clients with disability.

The complainant has autism and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and has an assistance dog. She alleged the respondent public hospital denied her access to certain departments of the hospital when she attended appointments with her assistance animal.

On being notified of the complaint, the hospital indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved. The complainant and her support person met with senior hospital staff to discuss the complainant’s need for an assistance animal and the provision of medical services to the complainant. As an outcome of this meeting, the hospital developed an agreed patient management plan.  

The complainant has a mobility disability and uses a wheelchair. She said she attended an event regarding possible seasonal work with the respondent retailer in response to an advertisement at a career day. The complainant alleged she was unable to attend the event or apply for a role because there were steps at the entrance to the room in which the event was being held.

The retailer confirmed the main entrance into the room where interviews were being held was not wheelchair accessible. The retailer claimed the complainant was offered the option of entering the room via a kitchen that was not in use. The retailer claimed the interview could have proceeded if the complainant had accepted this option.

The complaint was resolved. The retailer undertook to ensure all future such events are held in wheelchair accessible venues. The retailer also invited the complainant to make contact if she remained interested in seasonal or other work with the retailer.

The complainant is deaf and uses a hearing dog. She alleged that the respondent medical service denied or restricted her access to its premises when she was accompanied by her assistance animal.

The medical service advised the complainant had been a patient of the service for many years, but had never been accompanied by an assistance animal. The service said it required the complainant to leave her assistance animal at reception while she was undergoing an allergy test because she was unable to provide suitable evidence that her dog was an assistance animal. The service confirmed the complainant was not permitted to attend a follow-up appointment with her dog because there was a child in the waiting room with a severe allergy to dogs.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the medical service to accommodate patients with assistance animal in a manner which complied with relevant legislation and ensured the safety of all patients. The medical service agreed to develop a procedure outlining what should happen if a patient attends the service with an assistance animal and to provide staff with copies of relevant sections of federal and state legislation and guidelines.

The complainant has hyperthyroidism and has an assistance dog. She claimed that the respondent hair salon indicated that it would deny her access with her assistance dog, unless her assistance dog wore some kind of protection on its paws or used a floor underlay, due to the salon having recently renovated its floors. 

The hair salon claimed that it never denied the complainant access outright. It claimed its suggestions for paw protection and/or a floor underlay were attempts to accommodate the complainant and her assistance animal.

The complaint was resolved  with an agreement that the hair salon pay the complainant the ex gratia sum of $450.00.

The complainant has Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, depression and anxiety and was employed with the respondent local council. He said he experienced a panic attack at work arising from issues in his personal life. He alleged a manager disclosed information about his disability and attraction to a former supervisor without his permission. He also alleged the council did not permit him to return to his substantive role and required him to undergo numerous health assessments, despite him being deemed fit to return to work.

The council claimed it was not appropriate for the complainant to return to his substantive position for health and well-being reasons due to his attraction to his former supervisor and his mental health history.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the council pay the complainant approximately $95,000 and contribute to the cost of him accessing an employment services provider. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship.

The complainant has anxiety, depression and panic attacks and worked as a security guard at the premises of a government entity. He advised he was required to take time off work to attend appointments with his psychologist and to attend hospital to manage his disability. He alleged the government entity asked his employer, a private security company, to remove him from the site, ‘get rid’ of him and ‘fire’ him because he required a prolonged period of hospitalisation to undertake treatment for his disability.

The government entity claimed it was supportive of the complainant’s need to access leave to accommodate his disability, but needed to fill the role on an ongoing basis. The government agency said a person to fulfil the ongoing vacancy was sourced from another company because the complainant’s employer was unable to offer a suitably qualified candidate.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the government entity pay the complainant $10,000.