Conciliation Register

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.

The complainant has post-stroke hemiplegia, aphasia and depression, and has an assistance animal. He booked a two-night stay with the respondent resort, which would cost approximately $350 and was informed shortly before he was due to check-in that a $150 fee would apply because he was accompanied by an assistance animal. The complainant said he asked to see a copy of the relevant policy but it was not provided to him. He also alleged the resort declined to waive the fee despite his advice that his dog was trained, licensed as an assistance animal and non-shedding.

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

The complaint was resolved. The resort apologised to the complainant for his experience, offered him a complimentary one-night stay and raised the complainant's experience with management, resulting in a review of policy and the publication of new guidelines regarding assistance animals.

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’s nine-year-old son, who has Autism and is non-verbal, and his eleven-year old sister attended the respondent public primary school. The complainant alleged that staff were not adequately trained to support her son and that they assaulted her son by smacking him and dragging him along the floor by the arm. She alleged this treatment was witnessed by her daughter. At the time the complaint was lodged, the complainant had withdrawn her children from the school and intended to home-school them.

The school claimed staff were appropriately trained to support the complainant’s son and that a number of adjustments were implemented to accommodate his disability. The school advised that staff restrained the complainant’s son in response to behaviour that placed him and others at risk. The school claimed that staff restrained the complainant’s son using non-violent, crisis-intervention methods.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the department responsible for operation of the school pay the complainant $20,000 as general damages.

The complainant has an acquired brain injury and Attention Deficit Disorder and uses a nicotine inhaler to manage stress. He alleged he was not permitted to use the inhaler during a flight with the respondent airline despite informing crew that he required the inhaler to manage stress associated with his disability.

The airline advised that smoking and other related devices are not permitted to be used during flights. The airline explained the complainant did not initially disclose his disability and was rude to crew when asked not to use the inhaler. The airline advised the complainant was permitted to use the inhaler once he informed crew of his disability and need for the inhaler. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that, pending provision of relevant medical information, the airline issue the complainant with clearance to carry the inhaler, subject to his agreement to carry inhaler packaging and cooperating with crew inquiries. The airline also offered to credit the complainant 49,000 points in its frequent flyer program.

The complainant has a knee injury and applied for a role with the respondent law enforcement agency. He passed the relevant physical capacity tests but claimed his application was not progressed following a pre-employment medical assessment. The complainant alleged the agency mistakenly formed the view that he would not be able to perform the inherent requirements of the role.

The law enforcement agency claimed that prolonged standing, bending and squatting were inherent requirements of the role and that a pre-employment medical assessment concluded the complainant would be unable to safely perform these requirements.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant would reapply for the position. It was agreed the pre-employment medical assessment would be conducted by an independent orthopaedic surgeon and a new decision maker would be appointed to assess the complainant’s suitability to perform the inherent requirements of the position.

The complainant has anxiety and delivers driver training, which requires him to be registered with the respondent government department. He advised he was required to undertake training with the same department in order to maintain his registration, as registration requirements changed. He said he was unable to satisfactorily perform certain assessment tasks, such as public speaking due to his anxiety and alleged the department declined to accommodate his disability. The complainant claimed he was therefore at risk of losing his registration and his business.

The department indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the department extend the complainant’s registration to enable him to complete the required training. The department agreed to provide the complainant with adjustments to accommodate his disability, including smaller participant groups, lower numbers of assessors and meetings with assessors prior to assessment tasks to discuss what the task would involve and what adjustments could be provided to accommodate the complainant’s disability.

The complainant has anxiety and has an assistance animal. She alleged she was refused entry to the respondent museum because she was accompanied by her assistance dog, despite her dog wearing a jacket identifying it as an assistance animal. She further alleged a staff member had yelled at her for bringing a dog into the museum and ‘chased’ her out of the museum. The complainant alleged the museum failed to respond to a complaint about the alleged conduct.

The museum claimed the complainant’s assistance dog’s jacket was not visible at the time of the alleged events and denied that a staff member yelled at her or ‘chased’ her from the museum. The museum acknowledged there was a delay in responding to the complainant’s complaint, explaining this was due to a change in management.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the museum pay the complainant $5,000 and place a sign at its entry stating assistance animals are welcome at the museum. The complainant agreed to withdraw a complaint about the same incident to a different body and to provide the museum with free resources it can use to train its staff on responding appropriately to patrons with assistance animals. 

The complainant has palindromic rheumatism, a form of inflammatory arthritis, and uses a walking stick. He worked as a concierge and security guard with the respondent security company. He claimed the company informed him he would need to be redeployed as the owners of the building where he worked no longer required the company’s services. He alleged that his manager indicated his use of a walking stick was not accessible and he would be required to complete a fitness for duty assessment with no adjustments or modifications. He alleged his manager told him he could undertake the assessment or resign.

The security company denied discriminating against the complainant. The company said it was exploring redeployment opportunities for the complainant and required him to undertake an assessment to determine his capacity to perform the role.

The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The company agreed to pay the complainant approximately $3,500, equivalent to three weeks’ gross wages and entitlements.

The complainant worked part-time at the respondent health products company as a digital customer service Representative. She said that during her pregnancy she experienced pregnancy-related physical and mental health issues as well as work-related stress. She alleged that after becoming aware of her pregnancy, her supervisor was hostile towards her, started questioning her work ethic and contacting her on non-work days. She alleged that she was required to bring her toddler-aged son to a meeting on her non-work day. She also claimed that after taking sick leave, she was prevented from performing particular work that she enjoyed. The complainant resigned shortly after lodging a complaint with the Commission.

The company was of the view that the complainant’s supervisor's interaction with the complainant did not change after becoming aware of her pregnancy. The company said there was no expectation that the complainant respond to emails on her non-work days, said that any change in work arrangements was not due to her taking sick leave and said that the meeting with her son occurred with one week's notice when the complainant indicated availability. The company said it supported the complainant in her work and took a generous and accommodating approach towards the complainant's circumstances.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $4,000, provide her with a written reference and deliver anti-discrimination training to staff.