Remedies awarded by the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal

Brief details: A woman’s male employer made unsolicited advances to her in emails and texts, and when he required her to work late at his home, he kissed her on the forehead and tried to kiss her on the lips.

Brief details: A part-time worker in a hardware business was subjected to kissing, touching of her breasts and leg, persistent requests to have a drink outside work hours despite an ongoing refusal, asking for cuddles, telephoning her at home, and making repeated unsolicited sexual remarks. The woman reported the sexual harassment to her supervisor, but said she would handle it herself. The tribunal said the employer has an overriding responsibility to provide a workplace free from harassment, and the complainant’s wish to deal with it herself were secondary to the employer’s responsibility.

Brief details: An apprentice hairdresser claimed she was verbally abused by her employer after seeking time off to attend an antenatal doctor's appointment, and that this abuse caused her to resign. Before announcing the pregnancy, her employer had twice commented that staff who became pregnant would be sacked.

Brief details: A woman employed as a salesperson for floor coverings claimed that she was sexually harassed by the husband and wife owners of the business and a contractor.

The woman was dismissed after she complained of sexual harassment.

Brief details: A volunteer worker for St Vincent De Paul Society was told she could not continue to work as president of a conference group if she did not become Catholic.

Mr McCollum:
$2,200 (general damages, inclusive of interest, for vilification)
$8,250 (general damages, inclusive of interest, for sexual harassment)
Publish a public apology

Mr Sherman:
$30,000 (general damages)
$2,100 (interest on general) 
$15,000 (expenses);
$1,050 (interest on expenses)

Mrs Sherman:
$30,000 (general damages)
$2,100 (interest on general damages);
$18,000 (expenses)
$1,260 (interest on expenses)

sexuality vilification

Brief details: A man employed as a casual cleaner and machine operator was given markedly fewer shifts after he complained to management about a number of matters.  Although there were medical restrictions on the type of shifts the man could work, he could have been offered more day shifts than he was allocated.  This was found to be direct discrimination.

Although the man’s employment was terminated after he made a complaint to the Anti-Discrimination Commission, the complaint was not the reason for the dismissal.

Brief details:  A woman who worked as the registrar of a private school took two periods of leave after becoming pregnant. She returned to work on a part-time basis and shared the registrar job with another woman who had performed the role when the woman was on leave. After a while the school decided that the registrar position needed to be performed by one person on a full time basis.  Although more mothers without family responsibilities could comply with the requirement to work full time, in this case the requirement was reasonable.

Shortly before the interviews the woman informed the school that she was again pregnant.

Brief details: A Muslim prisoner was provided with the general fare meals, much of which he was unable to eat. The tribunal found that this was indirect discrimination. After he complained to the prison management about the food, he was given vegetarian food and no halal meat. The tribunal found this was direct discrimination.

Brief details: A prison officer injured his knee outside of work. After five months off work, he returned on a rehabilitation/return to work plan with modified duties. There was a second plan and then a third. Before the third plan was completed, the officer was directed to attend a medical assessment by an orthopaedic surgeon who reported that the officer would require ongoing treatment, and in the long term he would require knee replacements. The department (the employer) decided that the officer was not able to return to full duties and gave him the options of registering as a medical deployee or retiring on the ground of ill health. The officer objected, and claimed he had been performing full duties since the end of the third rehabilitation plan. Nine months later the department involuntarily retired the man on the grounds of ill health.

Brief details: A male and a female co-workers, both counsellors, sat in close proximity to each other in an open plan work place.

Ms Dale:
$17,000 (general damages)
$1,546 (interest on general damages)
$4,500 ( past loss of income)
$1,391 (interest on past loss of income)

Ms Larkin:
$15,000 (general damages)
$1,236 (interest on general damages)
$5,000 (past loss of income)
$1,546 (interest on past loss of income)
$400 (special damages – care of children)
$123 (interest on special damages)

Brief details: Complaints of age discrimination were made by eight women who were unsuccessful in obtaining jobs as flight attendants with Virgin Blue. They had been flight attendants with an Australian airline that had ceased to exist, and they were aged around 35 years and older.
The tribunal was satisfied that at a crucial stage of the selection process, assessors who determined the suitability of applicants to proceed to the next stage, unconsciously preferred younger people to older people in making an assessment of competence. The assessors themselves were in a younger group identified as under 35 years.

Affirmed on appeal See Virgin Blue Airlines Pty Ltd v Hopper & Ors [2007] QSC 075

$3,000 (general damages, inclusive of interest)

Brief details: A debt collector shouted abuse outside the home of a man who worked as a well-known drag queen. The debt collector called the man a gutless wonder, a paedophile , asked if he had any weapons, and said he'd see him at The Wickham hotel.

Paedophilia is a characteristic often wrongly attributed to gay men, and The Wickham hotel was a well-known gay hotel.

$20,000 (general damages)
written apology in wording prescribed by the tribunal

Brief details: A woman who worked as a receptionist in a real estate business was subjected to sexually suggestive remarks and leering by the male principal of the business. He showed her pornographic photographs and suggested they engage in the acts in them. On a number of occasions he put his hand up her skirt, touched her breasts, and kissed her neck. He would also blow kisses at the woman and complained when she wore long pants and long skirts.

While inspecting a property, the man pushed the woman on to a bed and lay on her, and then pushed her against a wall, undid her bra strap, tore at her clothing, and kissed her on the neck. During all of the incidents the woman made is clear that she objected to the conduct. The man was charged with indecent assault relating to the conduct at the property and he pleaded guilty.