ADC Annual Report 2000/2001

Indicative Complaints

Indicative complaints that the Commission has dealt with are:

Case Study 1: Parenthood

The Complainant was employed as a casual bar worker. She had been employed for about six years working an average of 18-20 hours per week. The Complainant learnt that her daughter had been sexually assaulted. She sought one weeks "compassionate leave" (totalling about six shifts).

On her return the Complainant was advised that her shifts would be taken by someone else. She stated she believed she was being sacked and this was not disputed. The next day the Complainant was contacted and offered one shift per week. A complaint of discrimination on the grounds of parenthood was made out.

Case Study 2: Smoking

(Impairment and Failure to Accommodate A Special Need)

A person who had a reaction to smoking experienced breathing difficulties, burning sensations in the throat and a shortness of breach each time they visited a shopping centre. Although the shopping centre displayed ‘no smoking’ signs at the entrance, smoking was still allowed in cafés located throughout the centre. The complainant wrote complaining to the Manager and provided a letter from their doctor explaining the condition and also stated that they were unable to continue shopping there because of their reaction to smoking. They did not receive a reply.

They then made an inquiry to the Commission, and lodged a complaint against the shopping centre management.

With conciliation, management agreed that they would include a ‘no smoking’ clause in all new leases. The management further agreed to provide extra signage and to continue support for a smoke free complex.

Case Study 3: Race

The Complainant was engaged to undertake some work. Her supervisor believed she had undertaken the work incorrectly and abused her in racial terms. A complaint was lodged with the Commission. The Complainant was advised that an isolated incidence of verbal abuse does not constitute discrimination under the Act. Her attention was drawn to the Racial Vilification provisions in Commonwealth legislation as perhaps providing a remedy.

Case Study 4: Impairment

A man, who presents with a slight limp from a previous injury, was successful in a job selection process that included a medical questionnaire. He mentioned in the questionnaire that, as a result of that injury, he negotiates stairs somewhat slower than the average person. As this did not impact on his ability to perform the requirements of the position effectively and efficiently, he was offered the job.

When he wished to establish whether the furniture would meet his needs, before starting the job, he received a letter rescinding the offer. This action was based on his medical condition which, the prospective employer said, he should have told them about before the interview. The matter was conciliated with an offer of compensation and the undertaking to attend training provided by the Commission.

Case Study 7: Marital Status/Parenthood

The Complainant was interviewed for a position. During the interview she was asked whether she was married and if so whether she had children. Comments were passed during the interview that the position involved a lot of travelling and that this would be difficult with young children. Other interviewees were not asked these questions. A member of the interview committee suggested the questions were inappropriate. After the Complainant left, the Chair of the interview committee advised the committee not to take matters relating to the applicant’s marital status or parenthood into account. The Complainant was unsuccessful. It was found that the Complainant had not discharged the onus of proving that the non-appointment was a result of her marital or parental status. However, the asking of the questions itself was found to constitute discrimination and an award of damages was made on this basis.

Case Study 8: Impairment/Failure to Accommodate a Special Need

A retail outlet had two steps that needed to be negotiated to gain access. The complainant was wheel chair bound. Originally the respondent suggested that wheel chair bound patrons would be assisted by staff to gain access to the premises if they contacted management beforehand. In conciliation, after a prima facie finding, negative to the Respondent, an agreement was reached to provide wheel chair access.

Case Study 9: Race

A group of Aboriginal people was hassled in a busy shopping area. They felt acutely embarrassed and humiliated by this treatment which singled them out from a much larger group of people, who were doing the same things in the same area. Other non Aboriginal people were not hassled. They lodged a complaint and the matter settled in conciliation for compensation for damages and an agreement to provide a training program for the employees working in the area, to prevent situations like these from happening again.

Enquiries

Categories Of Prohibited Conduct
1 July 1999 - 30 June 2000

PROHIBITED CONDUCT	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
Discrimination	41	38	36	55	39	32	34	37	35	42	47	42	478
Sexual Harassment	2	9	0	4	3	1	3	4	4	2	4	3	39
Victimisation	1	2	0	0	1	0	1	2	0	1	1	0	9
Failure to Accommodate Special Need	1	1	2	1	1	3	1	2	4	3	14	3	36
Discriminatory Advertising	0	0	0	1	2	3	2	4	1	0	1	1	15
Seeking Unnecessary Information	1	2	0	0	4	2	0	0	0	2	1	0	12
Aiding Contravention of Act	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
Total Covered by Act	46	53	38	61	50	41	41	49	44	50	68	49	590
NOT UNDER ACT
- Referred to other Agencies	10	10	13	4	5	7	5	9	10	9	13	16	111
- Information Posted	2	2	1	0	3	1	1	3	5	1	2	2	23
- Information Given	1	3	6	2	6	5	2	6	5	2	6	5	49
- Appointment	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1
Total not under Act	13	15	20	6	14	13	8	18	21	12	21	23	184
GENERAL INFO.
- Referred to other Agencies	0	1	1	0	0	0	2	1	2	1	2	5	15
- Information Posted	5	4	0	5	3	2	2	3	4	2	5	4	39
- Information Given	7	9	6	4	7	4	4	6	10	10	10	9	86
- Appointment	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
Total General Information	12	14	7	10	10	6	8	10	16	13	17	18	141
MONTHLY TOTAL	71	82	65	77	74	60	57	77	81	75	106	89	915
MODE OF ENQUIRY
- Telephone	64	72	58	69	63	51	44	66	70	63	97	82	799
- Personal	7	9	5	8	10	8	13	10	10	10	9	8	107
- Mail	0	1	2	0	1	1	0	1	1	2	0	0	9
Mode of Enquiry Total	71	82	65	77	74	60	57	77	81	75	106	90	915

Enquiries (Prohibited Conduct)

Areas Of Activities
1 July 1999 – 30 June 2000

PROHIBITED CONDUCT – DISCRIMINATION Grounds/Attributes	education	work	accom- modation	goods/ service/ facilities	clubs	insurance/ super	Total
Age	1	31	0	7	6	0	45
Association with a person who has, or is believed to have, an attribute referred	0	8	0	1	1	0	10
Breastfeeding	1	2	0	0	0	0	3
Impairment	7	54	3	30	0	5	99
Irrelevant Criminal Record	1	12	0	3	0	1	17
Irrelevant Medical Record	0	4	0	1	0	0	5
Marital Status	0	19	5	5	1	0	30
Parenthood	0	15	4	9	0	0	28
Political Opinion, Affiliation or Activity	0	2	0	1	0	0	3
Pregnancy	0	22	0	1	0	0	23
Race	7	49	10	22	1	3	92
Religious Belief/Activity	1	5	0	0	0	0	6
Sex	2	73	1	8	1	1	86
Sexuality	1	20	0	0	0	0	21
Trade Union Activity	0	10	0	0	0	0	10
Total	21	326	23	88	10	10	478
PROHIBITED CONDUCT Grounds	education	work	accom- modation	goods/ service/ facilities	clubs	insurance/ super	Total
Aiding Contravention of Act	0	1	0	0	0	0	1
Discriminatory Advertising	0	12	1	1	0	1	15
Failure to Accommodate Special Need	4	20	3	9	0	0	36
Sexual Harassment	2	36	0	1	0	0	39
Seeking Unnecessary Info	0	7	0	4	0	1	12
Victimisation	0	6	0	2	0	1	9
Total	6	82	4	17	0	3	112
TOTAL ENQUIRIES	27	408	27	105	4	19	590

Breakdown of Discrimination Enquiries Transactions

* ICR = Irrelevant Criminal Record
* IMR = Irrelevant Medical Record

By Areas by Percentage

Enquiries Transactions
1 July 1999 - 30 June 2000

Category of Prohibited Conduct
Discrimination	478
Sexual Harassment	39
Victimisation	9
Discriminatory Advertising	15
Seeking Unnecessary Information	12
Failure to Accommodate Special Need	36
Aiding a Contravention	1
Total	590

By Prohibited Conduct

Comparison of Enquiries Received by Month and Year

	1995/96	1996/97	1997/98	1998/99	1999/2000
July	52	82	78	81	71
August	68	79	99	64	82
September	71	82	123	120	65
October	78	66	91	97	77
November	94	51	72	115	74
December	50	53	55	49	60
January	54	65	72	59	57
February	102	77	101	89	77
March	100	54	80	101	81
April	64	75	76	81	75
May	85	76	89	81	106
June	85	72	77	73	90
Total	903	832	1013	1010	915

Yearly Comparison of Enquiries Received

Year	Total Enquiries Received
1 July 1994 – 30 June 1995	734
1 July 1995 – 30 June 1996	903
1 July 1996 - 30 June 1997	832
1 July 1997 - 30 June 1998	1013
1 July 1998 - 30 June 1999	1010
1 July 1999 - 30 June 2000	915

These figures relate to the particular year, they are not cumulative.

Formal Grounds/Complaints 1 July 1999 – 30 June 2000

Categories of Prohibited Conduct
Discrimination	364
Sexual Harassment	35
Victimisation	36
Failure to Accommodate Special Need	37
Seeking Unnecessary Information	26
Aiding Contravention of Act	25
Discriminatory Advertising	8
Total	531

By Prohibited Conduct

Complaints (Areas of Activities)
1 July 1999 – 30 June 2000

PROHIBITED CONDUCT – DISCRIMINATION Grounds/Attributes	Educ	work	Accom	goods/ services/ fac	clubs	insurance/ super	Total
Age	3	24	0	6	0	4	37
Association with person who has, or is believed to have, an attribute referred	1	8	0	6	1	0	16
Breastfeeding	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Trade Union/Employer Assoc. Activity	0	10	0	0	0	0	10
Impairment	7	22	1	22	0	4	56
Irrelevant Criminal Record	0	3	0	1	0	0	4
Irrelevant Medical Record	0	12	0	2	0	2	16
Marital Status	0	9	0	4	0	0	13
Parenthood	0	10	0	8	0	0	18
Political Opinion, Affiliation /Activity	0	7	0	6	0	0	13
Pregnancy	0	3	0	0	0	0	3
Race	4	24	4	64	0	0	96
Religious Belief/Activity	0	2	0	1	0	0	3
Sex	7	46	0	6	1	0	60
Sexuality	3	16	0	0	0	0	19
Total	25	196	5	126	2	10	364
PROHIBITED CONDUCT – DISCRIMINATION Grounds/Attributes	Educ	work	Accom	goods/ services/ fac	clubs	insurance/ super	Total
Aiding Contravention of Act	7	17	0	1	0	0	25
Discriminatory Advertising	0	3	0	4	0	1	8
Failure to Accommodate Special Need	5	13	0	18	0	1	37
Sexual Harassment	6	27	0	2	0	0	35
Seeking Unnecessary Information	0	20	0	5	0	1	26
Victimisation	1	25	0	10	0	0	36
Total	19	105	0	40	0	3	167
TOTAL COMPLAINTS FOR 1999/2000							531

Formal Grounds/Complaints on Hand

	OPENED				CLOSED					ON HAND
	96/97	97/98	98/99	99/00	96/97	97/98	98/99	99/00		96/97	97/98	98/99	99/00
July	21	15	39	46	22	9	26	29		129	111	170	304
Aug	9	19	19	32	5	26	30	31		133	104	159	305
Sept	25	21	18	32	40	19	30	26		118	106	147	311
Oct	15	17	25	18	14	17	11	7		119	106	161	322
Nov	15	13	52	19	24	23	10	16		110	96	203	325
Dec	18	24	31	14	11	12	28	17		117	108	206	322
Jan	14	20	15	16	15	12	21	29		116	116	200	309
Feb	16	35	23	8	21	9	18	25		111	142	205	292
Mar	15	22	85	30	17	25	23	36		109	139	267	286
Apr	14	30	49	15	8	15	52	23		115	154	264	278
May	11	27	23	24	9	19	29	34		117	162	258	268
June	9	24	68	25	21	29	39	16		105	157	287	277
Total	182	267	447	279	207	215	317	289		105	157	287	277

Note: one ‘file’ may contain a number of different grounds of complaint.

Outcomes of Formal Complaints

Outcome
Discontinuance by Commissioner (s102)	6
Dismissed - no prima facie found (s76)	65
Lapsed or Lost Interest (s72)	21
Referred to Hearing	21
Rejected at Outset (s66-69)	92
Settled	52
Withdrawn by Complainant (s71)	32
Total	289

Areas of Activities
1 July 1999 – 30 June 2000

Formal Complaints: Breakdown of Discrimination

*ICR – Irrelevant Criminal Record
*IMR – Irrelevant Medical Record

By Area by Percentage

By Percentage By Region

Respondents’ Profile By Percentage

Comparative – Enquiries Received

Comparative – Complaints Received