Employment Related Case Studies
1. Pregnancy discrimination
Deborah started full-time work
as an office administrator with a small training consultancy company. Three
months later she advised the company director that she was pregnant and was
suffering from pregnancy related illness. She claimed that the director
responded with words to the effect: “Look, this will jeopardise your
position”.
Deborah said that a
few weeks later when she told the director that she was ill again, he said
“That’s it. I’ve had enough. Pack your stuff and go” and
terminated her employment. She claimed that the company signed a separation
certificate which indicated that her employment was terminated due to her
pregnancy and frequent illness.
In
response the company said that it had accommodated the Deborah’s medical
appointments and had allowed her to take sick leave. It denied that
Deborah’s employment had been terminated and claimed that she had
resigned. The company stated that the details on the separation certificate had
been completed by Deborah prior to signature by the company.
The complaint was resolved by
conciliation with the company agreeing to provide the complainant with written
and verbal references and an ex-gratia payment of $6,000.
2. Disability discrimination
Maria was
employed as a senior supervisor with a large company. A month after she started
her job she began to experience pins and needles and numbness in her hands and
feet. She was admitted to hospital for tests, which led to a diagnosis of
multiple sclerosis.
Maria advised her
employer that she had a very mild form of multiple sclerosis and would require
three weeks to recover. She was confident that she could return to full-time
work and perform her duties. However, prior to her return to work she received a
letter which said her employment was to be terminated because of her
disability.
The company claimed that
Maria’s work performance had been a concern during the period she was
employed. It said that the decision to terminate her employment was based on its
belief that multiple sclerosis is notably unpredictable and there were serious
doubts she would be able to perform the inherent requirements of the job over
time.
At the conciliation conference
Maria provided medical evidence to demonstrate that she had been completely well
since her employment was terminated. The complaint was resolved through
conciliation with the company agreeing to pay Maria $6,500 compensation for lost
wages and general damages.
3. Discrimination on the ground of family responsibilities
Megan had
been employed as a full-time sales assistant with a retail store for about six
years. She claimed that when a new store manager commenced, her hours were
changed from 8.30am – 4.30pm to 10.30am – 6.30pm.
Megan told her manager that she
couldn’t work the new hours because the day care centre her daughter
attended closed at 6pm. She said she spoke with the Area Manager about
transferring to another store but was told that she would still be required to
do the later shift two days per week. Megan resigned from her
job.
The company responded by saying
that changing business needs and trading patterns had required changes to the
shifts of all employees. The company said they had discussed various options
with Megan and that she was offered a transfer to another store where she could
work two days on a later shift and three days on her usual shift but she had
refused this offer.
The complaint was
resolved through conciliation with the company agreeing to re-employ Megan
full-time on an 8am - 5pm shift. The parties agreed that Megan may be rostered
to work at other agreed stores, providing the company gives the complainant at
least two days notice. The parties also agreed that no break in Megan’s
employment would be recorded.
4. Race discrimination
Henry, who has
an Ethopian background, was employed with a manufacturing company. He claimed he
was called a ‘black bastard’, referred to as ‘monkey’
and asked “Where is there a well developed black country?” He said
he felt over-scrutinized compared to other employees and that he was rarely
acknowledged by co-workers and managers. Henry said that he eventually resigned
because of pressure put on him.
The
company denied Henry had been discriminated against because of his race. It
stated that while one employee had said to Henry “How are you, you black
bastard”, the employee claimed he had no intended any offence and had
apologised afterwards.
The complaint was resolved with an
agreement that the company would pay Henry $10,000 in compensation and provide a
verbal reference to prospective employees. The company also agreed to provide
anti-discrimination training for its staff.
5. Discrimination after workplace injury
Terry had been employed as a
warehouse supervisor for some years when he suffered a workplace injury which
resulted in impairment to his spine and leg. He claimed that his employment was
terminated after the injury because his employer felt he was unable to safely
perform his job.
Terry disputed that he
was unable to do his job safely and claimed his employer had not asked him
whether any adjustments could be made to assist him carry out his duties. He
said he had evidence to show he could improve his mobility by using a foot
brace. Terry also claimed his employer had not raised any concerns about his
performance or mobility prior to terminating his employment.
The company claimed that Terry was
unsteady when he walked and there were genuine concerns that he might fall or
trip in the warehouse, which would endanger himself and fellow workers.
The complaint was resolved through
conciliation with the company agreeing to reinstate Terry and pay him $52,000 in
compensation for lost wages, superannuation and legal costs.
6. Race discrimination by Indigenous employee
Murray, who is
Indigenous, said a form entitled ‘Aboriginal application for
employment’ was placed on the staff noticeboard. He claimed that the mock
application form reinforced negative stereotypes about Aboriginal people. For
example, a section entitled ‘Income’ included “theft;
unemployment; armed robbery” and a section entitled
‘Abilities’ included “rapist; VD spreader; pub fighter”.
Murray said another copy of the document was found in the storeroom but when he
raised it with management he was told not to worry about
it.
The company said that it did not
formally investigate the incident as the area where the document was posted was
accessible to all employees and contractors. It did, however, place a notice on
all notice boards stating that the document was racist and unacceptable. The
notice also stated that if an employee was found to be responsible they would be
banned from attending the site. The company confirmed that another copy of the
document was found and immediately destroyed. It claimed it acted appropriately
and took all reasonable steps to address the
incident.
The complaint was resolved by
conciliation. Murray agreed to withdraw his complaint on the basis that the
company would revise its EEO policies and procedures, appoint Harassment Contact
Officers, implement cultural awareness training for all staff and provide him
with a statement of regret.
7. Discrimination on the ground of criminal record
Paul worked as a cleaner
at a public facility and had previously undertaken a criminal record check in
order to obtain a security pass. Five months after he started work the company
reviewed and upgraded its security procedures and all employees underwent a
further check of their criminal history. Paul claimed that, as a result of these
new checks, he was deemed to be a security risk and ordered off the work site
because of his criminal record. He said this was unfair as his offences were for
traffic infringements that had occurred ten years ago.
Prior to the HREOC receiving a response
from the company, the complaint was resolved. The company agreed to provide Paul
with a security pass which allowed him to return to work at the
facility.
8. Discrimination on the ground of medical condition
Lisa had been
employed by a manufacturing company for three years when she took seven weeks
leave to undergo a hysterectomy and recover from surgery. She said that the week
before she was due to return to work she was advised that her position had been
made redundant.
Lisa claimed that it
was not a genuine redundancy and that no other employee had been made redundant.
She said that there were several casual employees who should have been the first
to have their positions terminated if there had been a downturn in business.
Lisa alleged that she had been made redundant because she had taken time off
work for medical reasons.
The company
denied discriminating against Lisa. It agreed that no other staff had been made
redundant, although one person had left voluntarily and had not been replaced.
The company said that Lisa had been selected for redundancy because business had
declined in the section in which she worked.
The complaint was resolved through
conciliation. The company agreed to pay Lisa $8,000 in compensation and provide
her with a written apology and a statement of service. The company also agreed
to provide anti-discrimination training for staff.
9. Sex discrimination and sexual harassment
Sarah was employed
in an administrative position with a manufacturing company. She claimed that
three junior male employees displayed pornographic magazines, used vulgar
language, made sexual gestures such as imitating masturbation, shared comments
about pornographic videos and discussed the purchase of sex aids. She also
alleged that these three colleagues challenged her authority as a manager.
Sarah said she complained about their
behaviour but the company took inadequate disciplinary action against them. She
claimed that after she complained she was demoted and criticised for her work
performance. Eventually her employment was terminated.
The complaint was resolved by
conciliation. Sarah agreed to withdraw her complaint against all the
respondents. The company agreed to pay $10,000 in compensation and provide a
written statement of service and a letter of regret.
10. Age discrimination
Josh was 19
years old when he was employed as an apprentice with an engineering company. He
claimed that because of his age he was continually subjected to workplace
bullying, harassment and verbal abuse. He claimed that the director regularly
made comments to him such as “Your father should have done the smart thing
and put your head in a warm bucket of water when you were born” and
“You are nothing but a useless c***” .
The company confirmed that Josh had
made an internal complaint about the actions of the director and a subsequent
investigation had confirmed the allegations. It advised HREOC that the director
was no longer employed with the company.
The complaint was resolved by
conciliation with the company agreeing to pay Josh $3,800 in general damages.
Where can I find out more?
If you want more information about the anti-discrimination laws and employment or HREOC's complaint handling process you can contact the Commission via the details below:
Post:
Human Rights
and Equal Opportunity Commission
GPO
Box 5218
Sydney NSW 2001
Telephone:
Complaints Info
line: 02 9284 9888 or 1300 656 419 (local call)
TTY: 1800 620 241 (toll free)
Fax: (02) 9284 9611
Online:
E-mail: complaintsinfo@humanrights.gov.au
Web site: www.humanrights.gov.au
If you are deaf or hearing impaired, the Commission can arrange for an Auslan interpreter if this is needed. You can also communicate with us by TTY by calling 1800 620 241.
If you are blind or visually impaired the Commission can provide on request information in alternative formats.
Disclaimer: The information on this fact sheet is intended only as a guide. It is not a substitute for legal advice.
