Unlawful requests for information case studies

The unlawful requests for information case summaries are grouped into two categories: court and tribunal decisions, and conciliated outcomes.

Court and tribunal decisions are made after all the evidence is heard, including details of loss and damage. The full text of court and tribunal decisions is available from:

Conciliated outcomes are where the parties have reached an agreement through conciliation at the Queensland Human Rights Commission.

Court and tribunal decisions

Online application asked for too much

Type of outcome Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision
Contravention Unlawful request for information
Outcome Complaint upheld
Compensation $5,000
Year 2014

Summary: In December 2013 Woolworths advertised for a console operator in Beerwah, and applicants were required to apply online. The online application included mandatory fields of date of birth, gender, the uploading of documents proving the right to work. The complainant was offended at being asked for this information in a job application. Also, he did not have his birth certificate or a passport, and he would not be able to get them before the closing date.

The tribunal found that the questions asked in the application were discriminatory. The information at the application stage was not necessary for any lawful purpose, and the defence to unlawful requests for information did not apply. The tribunal also found that section 124 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 is not inconsistent with either the federal Migration Act 1958 or the Privacy Act 1988 . (Under the Migration Act it is in offence to employ an unlawful non-citizen, and the Privacy Act applies to the collection of personal information by companies such as Woolworths.)

By the time of the hearing Woolworths had changed the online application form so that date of birth and gender are now non-mandatory fields, and applicants now nominate the type of document they intend to provide at interview to satisfy the right to work in Australia.

There was no evidence of any economic loss by the complainant, and he was awarded $5,000 general damages for embarrassment, humiliation and a notional amount for loss of chance.

Willmott v Woolworths Ltd [2014] QCAT 601 (11 November 2014)

Back to top

Conciliated outcomes

Unnecessary questions in online job application

Type of outcome Conciliation
Contravention Unlawful request for information
Outcome Policy changes / change in practice
Compensation 
Compensation $4,500
Year 2019–2020

Summary: The complainant wished to apply for a job and noticed that the online application form required applicants to provide details about their sex and age. These were mandatory fields without which the complainant’s application could not proceed.

The respondents argued that they did not access the information, that it was requested by a third party, and they did not require it for a discriminatory purpose. They also said there were other ways of applying for the role.

The respondent agreed to make changes to the online material and delete questions about gender, sex or age. They also agreed to provide the complainant with a list of all the available positions and pay the complainant $4,500 damages.

Back to top

Unnecessary request for information at job interview

Type of outcome Conciliation
Contravention Unlawful request for information
Outcome Financial compensation
Apology
Policy change
Compensation Undisclosed amount
Year 2017–2018

Summary: At a job interview, the complainant was asked in the perusal time to complete a criminal history check form and provide his driver’s licence to be photocopied. The complainant alleged that asking this information allowed the panel access to his date of birth (he was 64 years old) and thereby use this information to discriminate against him due to his age.

At conference, the respondents outlined that the reason they required this information was for a purpose other than discrimination, namely to ensure the complainant did not have any criminal history.

The complaint settled for financial compensation, an apology, and a policy change so that criminal history check forms would only be asked of the preferred applicant after interview, and not all interviewees.

Back to top

Prospective employee asked age at interview

Type of outcome Conciliation
Contravention Unlawful request for information
Outcome Apology
Policy change / change in practice
Year Not available

Summary: A man telephoned a prospective employer seeking a job which had been advertised. During an interview the man was asked his age. When he did not get the job he complained to the Commission that he was asked his age during the interview.

During an investigation it was discovered that the employer did not employ any person for the position as no person met the requirements for the job. The employer indicated that the question of age was one he asked all potential employees. It was noted that it was not necessary in this instance for the employer to know a potential employee's age.

In conciliation the employer agreed to provide an apology to the complainant for asking unnecessary information. He also undertook not to ask for unnecessary information during future job selection and to adopt non-discriminatory job selection procedures. The Commission assisted the employer in developing these procedures. The complainant stated he was satisfied with this as an outcome of making the complaint.

Back to top