The complaint was lodged by a 48 year old woman who has multiple sclerosis. The complainant said that she wanted to move out of her own home as she was finding it difficult to maintain the premises. She said she had inspected a self care unit in a retirement village, which suited her needs but the village would not allow her to purchase the unit because residents have to be over 55 years of age.

The respondent advised that most residents of the village were over 75 and had concerns about a younger person living in their community because of the possibility of noise and differences in lifestyle.

The complaint was resolved when the village manager spoke to the complainant in more detail about her needs and requirements and then agreed to approve the sale.

Apology -private

Training anti-discrimination/EEO staff training introduced

The complainant, who is 57 years old, said he had been employed with the respondent community organisation for two years. The complainant claimed the organisation reduced his working hours and then terminated his employment because of his age. He said there was an internal email which referred to him as "old" and said he was being replaced by someone "young".

The respondent organisation said the complainant's working hours were reduced at the complainant's request and his employment was terminated due to poor performance and a misconduct issue.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondent organisation would provide the complainant with an apology and arrange EEO training for staff.

Age -direct

Age -indirect

Financial compensation

Reference/Statement of Service provided

The complainant was employed as a packer with the respondent company. She said she was injured at work and after she exacerbated her injury, she told her employer she could not perform heavy lifting. She claimed she was told that she was too old for the work and her employment was terminated because of her age and her work injury.

The respondent company confirmed that the complainant’s employment had been terminated but claimed this was due to her inability to perform the inherent requirements of her job.

The complaint was resolved through ongoing negotiations after a conciliation conference. The respondent company agreed to provide the complainant with a statement of service and a termination payment of $7,300

The complainant, who is over 65 years of age, was employed in a managerial position with the respondent mining company. The complainant claimed he was asked to move to a consultancy position and agreed to this as he felt he had no choice in the matter. He said that a much younger person was placed in his original position and then within a matter of days, his new position was made redundant. The complainant alleged he was treated this way because of his age.

The company generally agreed with the events outlined by the complainant but disputed that this action was because of the complainant’s age. The company said it was going through a period of change and associated redundancies and was not aware the complainant's new position would be made redundant when they asked him to move.

The complaint was resolved at conciliation with an agreement that the company would pay the complaint $50,000 financial compensation.

Age -direct

Age -indirect

The complainant, who is 50 years of age, applied for a position with the respondent company. He said that during the interview a panel member said "What do you want this job for at this late stage of your life?" The complainant alleged that his age was a reason why his application was unsuccessful.

The respondent company denied treating the complainant less favourably on the ground of his age and said his application was unsuccessful because of his performance at interview.

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

Age -direct

Age -indirect

The complainant advised that she is 51 years of age. She claimed she was employed with the respondent government agency as a Customer Service Officer on a contract basis. She said that during the course of her employment, her supervisor did not provide her with adequate support and made inappropriate comments towards her because of her age. The complainant claimed she was forced to resign due to the alleged less favourable treatment. The complainant further claimed that her supervisor did not approve her request for flex leave to enable her to attend her mother’s cancer surgery.

The respondent agency denied that the complainant was treated differently to other employees and denied she was forced to resign. The agency said the complainant’s request for flex leave was made during the busiest time of the year and the complainant did not provide her supervisor with relevant information about the proposed leave.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondent would pay the complainant $2,000 compensation characterised as general damages.

The complainant was employed on a casual basis with the respondent retail food company. The complainant claimed he stopped receiving shifts when he turned 18 years of age. He also alleged that area managers had told him it was company practice to reduce shifts once staff turned 18.

The respondent company denied age discrimination and said that the complainant was not offered shifts because he had failed to show up for a number of allocated shifts.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company would provide the complainant with a reference on agreed terms.

Age -direct

Age -indirect

The complainant, who is 43 years old, said he had applied for a hospitality traineeship with the respondent club. He claimed he was told that he was too old for the traineeship as it was for school leavers.

The club denied that the complainant was told he was too old for the traineeship but confirmed that the program was aimed at school leavers or people with no work experience. The club said the complainant was not offered the traineeship because of his qualifications and work experience.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the club would arrange for the complainant to attend two of its hospitality courses free of charge. The club also provided the complainant with a statement of regret.