Conciliation Register

The complainant uses a wheelchair, is non-verbal and uses eye-gaze technology and hand-over-hand techniques. The complainant enrolled in a diploma with the respondent vocational education provider and an individual plan was developed setting out reasonable adjustments to be provided to the complainant. The complainant alleged the vocational education provider did not provide her all the agreed adjustments, required her to repeat tasks and assessments and did not give her feedback or results for her work. She said she felt she had no option but to withdraw from the diploma. 

The vocational education provider claimed it provided the complainant with support to accommodate her disability in accordance with the action plans developed in consultation with her and her support team, which was revised over time. The provider noted some competency concerns and said that some of the proposed adjustments were not agreed to as they were not 'reasonable' and, if adopted, may compromise the integrity of the course.  

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the vocational education provider pay the complainant $30,000. 

The complainant has a spinal cord injury and uses an electric wheelchair. The complainant said he booked a flight with the respondent airline and was informed that, in accordance with its policies, airline staff would assist him to transfer from his wheelchair to his seat on the plane. The complainant alleged that on arriving to board the flight, he was informed staff could not assist him to transfer to his seat and he was therefore unable to board the flight, as he is unable to transfer independently from his wheelchair. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the airline reimburse the complainant for his out-of-pocket expenses associated with the flight, including travel to and from the airport. The airline also agreed to pay the complainant $12,000 as general damages. The airline agreed to write to the complainant apologising for the incident and undertook to deliver disability awareness training to staff, as well as training on assisting passengers to transfer from a wheelchair to the seat. 

The complainant’s son is eight years of age and has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, learning difficulties and sensory processing difficulties. The complainant alleged the respondent government public housing provider placed her and her son in unsuitable accommodation. In particular, she claimed the home was too crowded and did not offer enough space to set up occupational therapy equipment needed to manage her son’s disability. 

On being notified of the complaint, the public housing provider indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant enter a lease for a larger home and receive $2,000 credit into their rental account. 

The complainant has an acquired brain injury and was employed as a service officer in a government agency. The complainant said he advised the agency of his disability when he applied for the role and requested reasonable adjustments to accommodate his disability, particularly extra time to process information. He alleged the agency took over four months to provide him with adjustments and then terminated his employment.  

The government agency said the complainant did not provide information about his disability during the onboarding process and the doctor who performed the pre-employment medical examination did not recommend provision of any adjustments. The agency said that once it became aware of the complainant’s disability, it obtained additional medical information and developed an individual support plan which included provision of adjustments. The agency said it terminated the complainant’s employment because he failed to meet satisfactory standards of performance during the probationary period. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the agency pay the complainant $10,000, write to him expressing regret for his experience in relation to performance appraisal and convey his feedback to its human resources and other relevant teams. 

The complainant's son is on the Autism Spectrum and has Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder, among other disabilities. He attended the respondent K-12 independent faith-based school. The complainant alleged the school did not take reasonable steps to assist her son to transition from Year 6 to Year 7 and failed to provide him with reasonable adjustments. She claimed this led to an escalation in behaviour by her son and alleged the school responded in a punitive way by suspending him on multiple occasions rather than appropriately accommodating his disability. The complainant also alleged the school treated her less favourably as a parent of a student with disability by not addressing her concerns and making her feel guilt and shame by discussing concerns raised by other parents about her son. The complainant advised she felt she had no option but to remove her son from the school. 

The respondent school denied discriminating against the complainant or her son but indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the school pay the complainant $30,000 as general damages and write to her and her family apologising for the hurt and distress they experienced as a result of the events giving rise to the complaint. The school also undertook to review its policies and procedures concerning supporting students with disability and behaviour management strategies more generally. Additionally, the school undertook to review training delivered to teachers to ensure appropriate training in supporting students with disability and behaviour support more generally. 

The complainant has a neurological condition and paraplegia. He claimed the pool at the respondent gym, which he used for hydrotherapy, was not accessible and he had fallen as a result. He claimed he was offered a water-wheelchair but felt this was undignified and railings should be provided to allow safe access to the pool. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking that access railings would be installed in the pool. 

The complainant is deaf and uses a cochlear implant. She alleged the respondent motel informed her she would not be able to bring her service dog with her because it did not allow pets in guest rooms. 

On being notified of the complaint, the motel indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the motel write to the complainant apologising for what happened and confirming that assistance animals and their owners would be permitted to stay at the motel. The motel also undertook to make a donation to a charity of the complainant's choice and agreed to engage an independent third-party training organisation to train staff and develop a policy on assistance animals.  

The complainant’s adult son has an acquired brain injury, experiences seizures and uses a wheelchair. The complainant advised she booked a wheelchair accessible taxi with the respondent taxi company to take her son to the local pool for hydrotherapy and bring him home afterwards. She alleges the taxi booked to bring her son home did not arrive, leaving him alone and wet at the pool carpark. 

On being advised of the complaint the respondent taxi service indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the taxi service write to the complainant and her son apologising for the incident and provide a direct contact point for future bookings. 

The complainant is Aboriginal and has post-traumatic stress disorder and other disabilities. He was placed with the respondent cleaning company by a disability employment service. He claimed he was triggered by a workplace incident where he was accidentally locked in a room for a time. He said he asked to always work with a 'buddy' but this request was denied. He said his employment was terminated after he brought a family member to work to accommodate his disability. 

The company said it was unaware of the complainant's disability or any need for adjustments. The company said all cleaners work with a 'buddy'. The company confirmed it terminated the complainant’s employment after he brought a family member onto a work site on multiple occasions against his manager's direction. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company would characterise the end of the employment relationship as a resignation and provide the complainant with a statement of service. The company agreed to write to the complainant expressing regret that there was miscommunication and he felt unsupported in the workplace. The company undertook to investigate the provision of training on mental health for its staff and to review its policies on supporting employees with disability. The company also agreed to pay the complainant $4,750 as general damages. 

The complainant has a lung disease and believed she would be eligible for an exemption from mask-wearing requirements imposed in response to COVID-19. She said she felt breathless when attending the respondent bank and so pulled her mask below her chin. She alleged a bank attendant and the branch manager insisted the mask must cover her nose and mouth. 

On being notified of the complaint the bank indicated a willingness to attempt to resolve the complaint by conciliation. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the bank pay the complainant $1,500. 

The complainant advised he has chronic mental health issues and lives in public housing. He alleged he was not allowed to keep a pet snake in his apartment while other residents were allowed to have pets. 

The respondent public housing provider advised pets were not allowed in the complainant’s apartment unless an exemption had been granted. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant would be granted an exemption allowing him to keep his snake so long as he provided assurances that he would keep the snake in a safe and secure manner.