Remedies awarded by the QCAT and the QIRC

Brief details: The complaint involved several instances of comments and gestures made by a woman towards a neighbour. They included shouting to the neighbour to go back to China, calling him a chink and stretching the skin around her eyes to make them appear slanted, calling him a piece of shit, yelling to the man and his partner fucking gay, you will never have children , shouting go away from my land , are you from Japan, killing people , throwing grapefruit, spitting, and grunting like a monkey.

The neighbour was a male of Chinese heritage. Some of the instances were captured by video on a phone and were viewed at the hearing. Several witnesses gave evidence, including the neighbour’s partner. The woman and the man each blamed the other for hostilities between them. The tribunal said it was not its function to apportion blame or referee an ongoing dispute, and even if the man was the instigator of hostilities, it did not excuse racial or homophobic vilification.

The tribunal found that all the instances were public acts that were capable of inciting severe ridicule of the man.

Although the incidents did not cause a serious psychological injury, the tribunal was satisfied that the hurt and humiliation that the man suffered, resulted in a significant adverse impact on his work, study, and social functioning.

The tribunal awarded compensation of $10,500.

Brief details: This was a complaint of racial vilification by a man who was originally from Germany who spoke English with a heavy German accent. It concerned racially based insults from an adjacent neighbour's boundary.

The man had been out in a utility driven by his son and when they returned to the man’s home there was no space to park on the street, so they parked in the man’s driveway. The man walked to the footpath to check that his son had parked close enough to hedges that were just inside his property. The man claimed that at that time the neighbour’s son, who was standing with his father and brother in the front yard of the father’s property said, What are you looking at you f***ing German c***? The man said his younger grandson shouted back What did you say that for? and his older grandson shook his head.

The tribunal said the comments are insulting and pejorative in relation to the man being thought to be German. The tribunal considered the comments were capable of urging on, stimulating, or prompting to action the ordinary reasonable person to the requisite feelings of ill-will towards the man, and did in law amount to racial vilification.

The tribunal accepted that the racially vilifying words were highly insulting to the man and caused him to be hurt and humiliated, particularly in front of his son and grandsons who witnessed him being treated in this manner. The man felt intimidated and fearful for his safety and said he suffered anxiety and sleeplessness, and an inability to peacefully enjoy his home in the front yard area. The tribunal considered an appropriate award for a one-off remark of the present kind is $3,300 (inclusive of interest) and ordered the neighbour’s son to pay that amount to the man by way of compensation for racial vilification.

Brief details: A man who was a prisoner at the Woodford Correctional Centre asked for a separate grill or sandwich-maker for him and other Muslim prisoners to use. He could not use the grill shared by prisoners because some of the meals it was used for contained cooked ham. It is against the man’s religious beliefs as a Muslim to consume pork or foods that have come into contact with pork.

The request was initially refused; however, a separate toaster was provided around the time that the man left the centre. The tribunal found that in refusing to provide a separate toaster, the prison imposed a requirement that the man use the shared grill, and that he could not comply with this requirement because of his religious beliefs.

In considering whether the requirement was reasonable, the tribunal was obliged under the Corrective Services Act 2006 to take into account the need for the prison to find a solution that did not interfere with security and was not disproportionate in the use of resources.

The tribunal found that the requirement was unreasonable, and that man had been indirectly discriminated against.

The Corrective Services Act 2006 provides that the tribunal can only make an order for compensation for unlawful discrimination if the conduct complained of was done in bad faith and no other order effectively redresses the offender for the contravention.

The tribunal found that the prison did not act in bad faith and therefore it could not order compensation.

Brief details: A mother booked accommodation in an apartment complex on the Gold Coast to have a holiday with her child and the child’s grandmother. The child relies on an assistance dog to assist with his autism condition, and the mother is the handler of the dog. The dog usually walks between the child and his mother.

On arrival at the complex the managers told the mother that the dog would have to be carried in a shopping trolley on the common areas, and that when leaving the building the dog had to be taken through the basement car park.

This meant the family were unable to walk together. The arrangement caused distress to the child, and he was more difficult to manage because of the change to their usual routine of walking with the dog between the mother and child. The mother experienced stress and anxiety by the reaction of the child.

The tribunal found indirect discrimination of both the child and his mother.

The tribunal awarded compensation of $8,000 for the child and $5,000 for the mother. The tribunal made an order under section 59(1) of the Public Trustee Act 1978 that the compensation for the child be paid to the mother as trustee for the child.

Brief details: Two men who lived in a same-sex relationship complained about the following conduct of a female neighbour.

• The neighbour calling out Kill the fags and then loudly playing a gangster rap song containing the words Kill that faggot ; and
• The respondent played the gangster rap song loudly whenever one of the men were in the garden; and
• On another occasion when the men were on a morning walk, the respondent yelled Go away faggots and you are going to perve in the neighbourhood .

The tribunal found that these events did happen.

The tribunal found that the use of the term faggot in reference to homosexual men would obviously cause offense, and that the comments and deliberate playing of lyrics repeating the term was easily found to be offensive.

The tribunal found that the comments and the music played clearly had a sexual connotation, and that they were made with the intention of offending and humiliating the men. The tribunal said that the term is demeaning in the context of sexuality, and that a reasonable person would anticipate that the conduct would be offensive to the men.

Accordingly, the tribunal considered that the conduct amounts to sexual harassment that is prohibited under the Act.

The men did not particularise, identify, or quantify any damage caused by the sexual harassment, and the tribunal noted that the neighbour had relocated residence, and that the men had committed acts of retaliation.

Due to the great animosity between the parties, the tribunal considered an apology would be insincere and accordingly it was not appropriate to order either a private or public apology.

Brief details: A woman working in a laundromat was subjected to escalating unwelcome conduct from her boss, and work was withheld from her when she rejected his advances.

The sexual harassment included inappropriate touching of the woman’s bottom and legs, forcing the woman to touch the man’s genitals, asking for massages, repeated requests for sex, and explicit text messages. The tribunal referred to the conduct as transactional , as the woman was required to accede or she would not be offered work.

Eventually the woman reported the behaviour to the police, and the police advised her not to return to the workplace due to fears for her safety.

The tribunal found that the conduct constituted both sexual harassment and sex discrimination, and awarded general damages of $30,000, aggravated damages of $5,000, and special damages (loss of income until the business closed) of $15,960.75.

On appeal against the quantum of damages, the Industrial Court found the combined assessment of general and aggravated damages to be manifestly inadequate, and in their place awarded a total of $130,000. The Court said the conduct of the man was extremely serious, tormenting the woman over a period of 14 months. The only reason the woman tolerated the lewd and disgusting behaviour was because of her financial position. Every day she worked she knew she would be humiliated and demeaned sexually by the man, and it resulted in a diagnosed disorder causing her to be unable to work.

The Court also reassessed loss of income to the date of hearing at $28,702.60.

Brief details: A five-year-old boy of Cook Island descent commenced school in 2020 at a Christian private school attended by his older sister.  It is a Cook Island custom to not cut the firstborn son’s hair until a hair-cutting ceremony is held.  The boy’s parents planned to hold a ceremony the following year when the boy would be aged seven.  In the meantime, for school, the boy wore his hair in a neat bun.  The school uniform policy requires boys’ hair to be cut above the collar.  The boy’s parents were given notice that the boy would be unenrolled if his hair was not cut and worn in accordance with the school uniform policy.

The custom was a characteristic of the boy’s race.

Brief details: At the suggestion of her doctor, a woman who had been diagnosed with chronic depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder obtained an assistance dog to help alleviate her symptoms of depression and anxiety.

The woman and her husband lived in a unit that they rented. She applied for permission to keep the dog and was told that dogs were not allowed. The woman and her husband were later given a notice to leave the premises on the basis that they were in breach of the lease by having the dog on the premises.

The dog had been trained sufficiently to perform tasks  and behaviours that assisted the woman to reduce her need for support.

The woman suffered a significant degree of stress from being evicted, and she and her husband lived in camp sites and caravan parks and lost contact with friends.

The tribunal awarded the officer compensation of $33,906.16, made up of:

• $10,000.00 (general damages)
• $11,372.00 (loss of salary)
• $1,043.30 (lost recreational leave)
• $3,546.75 (two weeks leave without pay)
• $7,944.11 (lost penalty payments)

Brief details: A residential care officer developed a chronic kidney disease and had to undertake a type of dialysis twice during a 12-hour shift and once during an 8-hour shift. At the time, the officer worked three 12-hour day shifts, three 12-hour night shifts and one 8-hour variable shift each fortnight. He conducted the dialysis during his breaks.

At the time he developed the condition, the officer had worked as a residential care officer for 16 years and had been caring for three intellectually disabled people in a residence.

The department determined that the officer could not continue as a residential care officer (RCO) while he needed to undertake the dialysis and he was redeployed to an administrative position. He returned to working as a residential care officer 11 months later, after having a successful kidney transplant.

The tribunal held that the need to undergo dialysis is a characteristic that a person with chronic kidney disease generally possesses and was, therefore, part of the protected attribute of impairment.

In this case the tribunal considered the circumstances for comparison include that the comparator is partially restricted for 20 minutes, and absolutely restricted for 30 seconds, in attending the needs of service users, and that the restriction occurs during a crib break. The self-administered medical procedure is a characteristic of the impairment and should not form part of the circumstances for the purpose of assessing direct discrimination.

The tribunal found it was less favourable treatment of the officer to:

• direct him not to perform the dialysis treatment in his crib break, when he was just as responsive as another RCO who was otherwise occupied in their crib break; and
• decide not to continue to backfill in circumstances where it completely eliminated any risks to service users and cost less than employing the officer in a supernumerary administrative role; and
• not pay his projected RCO roster, including shift penalties, when he was transferred to alternative duties.

There was also a greater expectation of the officer in relation to the performance of his duties as an RCO than applied to other RCOs, and the respondents applied more onerous requirements than they expected of others.

There was no material increase in the risk to service providers in the officer performing the dialysis treatment during his crib breaks. He would keep the service users in his line of sight when administering the treatment, whereas other officers using the bathroom, hanging out washing, or smoking outside during their crib breaks were not more responsive than this officer.

The tribunal found that the officer’s position could be fulfilled and performed notwithstanding that over a crib break a person might be occupied in a manner that rendered them unable to respond to a situation for 30 seconds.

The less favourable treatment of the officer was because of his impairment and the need to perform the dialysis treatment during his crib breaks.

The tribunal also found that the respondents imposed a term that the officer could not perform the dialysis treatment at work, that the officer could not comply with that term where officers without his impairment could comply, and the term was not reasonable.

There was therefore both direct and indirect discrimination of the officer on the basis of his impairment.

The tribunal considered the exemptions of imposing genuine occupational requirements (s 25), special services or facilities required that impose unjustifiable hardship (s 35), circumstances of impairment impose unjustifiable hardship (s 36), and protecting the health and safety of people at a workplace (s 108). It found that there was no requirement to actively and continually support and supervise the service users for the entire duration of a 12-hour shift, there was no need for special requirements for the officer, there was no unjustifiable hardship on the employer, and removing the officer from the workplace was not reasonably necessary.

Brief details: Indirect discrimination was found where a medical student was required to sit a complex practical examination while he was an inpatient at a psychiatric ward.

Failing the exam and undergoing a lengthy appeals process was a material disadvantage to the student. It did not however play a starring role in the ultimate disenrollment of the student as it was not counted as an attempt at the exam.

Attempts by the university to right the wrong did not mean there could be no finding of discrimination, however it impacted the assessment of compensation.

The tribunal considered the student should not be compensated beyond nominal compensation, and given the lack of submissions on the amount of compensation sought, the tribunal ordered the university to pay the student $2,000.

The tribunal awarded damages totalling $1,450,771.69 comprised of:

General damages: $50,000.00;
Interest on general damages $4,410.00;
Past economic loss $830,824.83;
Lost superannuation $78,928.35;
Interest of past economic super $78,784.62;
Future economic loss $407,823.89.

Brief details: The complainant was a doctor and a former member of parliament and Assistant Minister for Health. He was sacked as Assistant Minister for Health and he resigned from parliament and from the Liberal National Party. He had been critical of the government of the time, being involved in a very public dispute over employment contracts of public hospital doctors. Before going into politics he had been employed in public hospitals throughout Queensland as a physician and geriatrician, and at one stage he was the State President of the Australian Medical Association.

After leaving politics, Dr Davis applied for an advertised position as a specialist geriatric medicine senior medical officer for the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, and was the only applicant for the position. The standard recruitment procedure was not followed, and the position was withdrawn.

The tribunal found that departing from the standard recruitment process by notifying the Board (via the chief executive) would have occurred in the case of an application from any person with a high profile, and accordingly was not less favourable treatment of Dr Davis.

However, the tribunal found that the decision of the CEO to cease the recruitment process and not appoint the complainant amounted to less favourable treatment of him. An inference that the decision was made because of the complainant’s political belief or activity was open on the evidence, and there was no innocent explanation for the decision.

The tribunal found that the discrimination caused the complainant to change from a confident, high achieving medical professional capable of taking responsibility for the management and direction of an entire department of a major public hospital to an anxious, despondent, socially isolated person who demonstrates a lack of purpose, self-worth and drive. The tribunal found the deleterious impact had been long lasting and was ongoing.

The tribunal made the following orders with the consent of the parties:

Without admitting to a contravention of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), the respondents:

(a) agree that they have discriminated against the applicant on the basis of age;

(b) agree that the data summaries provided in the proceeding have not satisfied the applicant that they are reasonable;

(c) agree to review their policies and procedures, by 30 September 2018, to ensure they do not discriminate on the basis of age except where allowed for by law;

(d) will keep the applicant informed by 30 November 2018 of the review and responses that have been undertaken; and

(e) will pay the applicant’s costs in the sum of $7,000.00.

Ms Vuga is the founder member and President of the Love Australia or Leave party, and she wanted to hold a meeting in Hervey Bay. A party member arranged for attendees to meet for drinks at the Beach House Hotel before going to a meeting elsewhere, the location for which would be disclosed at the drinks.

The party prepared a flyer which was widely distributed, including in the hotel. When the hotel manager saw the flyer the day before the intended drinks and meeting, he made some enquiries and then contacted Ms Vuga. He had concerns about the possible size of the gathering for drinks in the main bar and the impact on other patrons. He told Ms Vuga she could not have the meet for drinks at the hotel, and the hotel did not want to be associated with the party. The manager hired security for the intended event and people wearing tee shirts with Love Australia or Leave printed on them were denied entry to the hotel.

The tribunal found there were two substantial reasons why the manager decided not to allow the meet for drinks to take place – one was the impracticality of the arrangements and the way the party had organised them, and the other was the dislike of Ms Vuga’s political views and disagreement with those of the party.

Discrimination on the basis of an attribute happens if the attribute is a substantial reason for the less favourable treatment.

It was direct discrimination when the hotel manager did not permit the gathering at the hotel and when he told Ms Vuga that the hotel did not want anything to do with the party and it was not welcome at the hotel.

The tribunal found that the safety of hotel staff was not a substantial reason for the decision not to allow the gathering to take place, and the tribunal was not satisfied that the decision was reasonably necessary to protect the safety of the staff.

Ms Vuga was awarded damages of $2,500 for the offence she felt when told of the hotel’s decision, that it wanted nothing to do with her party, and that the party was not welcome at the hotel.

A cleaner at a school was sexually harassed when two of his co-workers, one male and one female, set up a staff room to appear as though two staff members had used the room for a sex romp.The prank was directed at the cleaner, and the room was set up with empty alcohol bottles, clothes, and a condom containing fluid. The male co-worker invited the cleaner to sniff boxer shorts left in the room. The cleaner was distressed by the scene, including that he thought he was cleaning up bodily fluids. He was also upset and concerned that two named staff members were having an affair and had used the school premises to get together. He was preoccupied with the sex romp to the point that he intended to speak to one of the staff members who he thought was involved. At that time, the male co-worker involved in the prank told the cleaner that it had all been a prank. On hearing this, the cleaner fell to his knees.

The tribunal found it was also sexual harassment of the cleaner when the male co-worker invited him to sniff the boxer shorts, and when that co-worker informed staff in a nearby shop of the prank.

The tribunal found the cleaner had been victimised after complaining of sexual harassment. The male co-worker had pretended to photograph or video the cleaner when he was at the school, and had gestured with his middle finger to the cleaner's wife and children at the school.

The cleaner suffered an acute anxiety state because of the prank, and within a month he was unable to work. He suffered an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression, and his psychological condition developed into post-traumatic stress disorder. His condition caused problems sleeping and concentrating, fatigue, rapid heart rate, trembling, obsessive thinking, eating and stomach problems, compulsive behaviours, bouts of crying, depressed mood, and feelings of hopelessness an anxiety. He was unable to work for two years, and was then only able to return to part-time work. The tribunal considered he would be unable to return to full-time work for a further two years.

The tribunal discussed at length how QCAT should assess damages in light of the 2014 decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Richardson v Oracle .

The tribunal stressed the importance of consistency in awards, particularly as required under the QCAT Act. The tribunal also examined the six cases where Richardson has been cited in other Australian jurisdictions. That examination shows that although there have been some increases in the level of awards, those increases have not been nearly as dramatic as in Richardson itself.

The tribunal concluded that where there is a recognisable personal injury, the tribunal should continue the approach of consistency with Queensland court awards in personal injury cases. However, where there is no recognisable personal injury and therefore no comparable Queensland awards, the tribunal can be influenced by Richardson to increase its level of awards, if it is appropriate to do so.

When considering previous awards, those awards should be adjusted for inflation. Advocates would assist the tribunal in adjusting previous awards for inflation when citing them.

The tribunal also determined that interest on non-financial loss should be awarded unless there is a proper reason for not doing so, though not at a commercial rate.

Non-financial loss (pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and the offence, embarrassment, humiliation and intimidation suffered): $70,000

Interest on non-financial loss: $3,160

Past loss of income (gross): $17,430

Past loss of superannuation: $1,656

Future loss of income: $48,338

Future loss of superannuation: $5,467

Future cost of treatment: $10,000

Total award: $156,051

.

A young woman was sexually harassed when she woke to find an older man naked in her bedroom. He touched her upper thigh and groin, and tried to remover her underpants. She told him to leave and broke down crying.

The woman's employer had arranged for her to share the work-provided accommodation with the man. They each had their own room, and the woman had moved in the night before the sexual harassment.

The woman was unable to take up her new job as planned, and she suffered post-traumatic stress disorder and depressive symptoms. She was unable to work from the incident (which happened on 1 December 2012) until March 2015.

The tribunal found that the personal injury to the woman caused by the sexual assault on her was severe and prolonged.

Issues the tribunal considered and decided included whether the sexual harassment occurred in the course of the man's employment, the credibility of the woman and the extent to which the sexual harassment caused her injuries, and how damages should be assessed.

General damages (personal injury): $70,000

Interest on general damages: $8,260

Past financial loss (gross of tax, and after deducting worker's compensation payments received): $162,594.42

Interest on past financial loss: $33,575.75

Past loss of superannuation: $21,059.06

Interest on past loss of superannuation: $4,348.70

Future economic loss: $25,000

Special damages: $396.40

Interest on special damages: $81.77

Future medical and associated costs: $3,000

Total: $328,316.10, from which the amount of settlement of a personal injuries claim for the same event.

Total award: $313,316.10.

impairment, providing goods or services

direct discrimination

The tribunal made the following orders with the consent of the parties:

The respondents to:

• apologise to the complainant for any embarrassment, hurt or upset caused to him by an incident on 24 June 2016 when he intended to dine in the restaurant accompanied by his hearing assistance dog;
• publish on the restaurant's Facebook page an apology in similar terms;
• ensure that all staff are trained about the laws allowing hearing assistance dogs to be allowed access to restaurants;
• place a notice in a conspicuous place in the restaurant that no dogs are allowed due to health regulations except recognised assistance dogs; and
• donate $750 to the Lions hearing dog program.

The complainant to publish on the restaurant's Facebook page an acknowledgment that the incident on 24 June 2016 was unfortunate, and that the respondents did not knowingly breach any provision as to access of a hearing assistance dog.

The orders were published as a final decision without reasons.

Thorne v Toowoomba Regional Council
[2016] QCAT 212 (27 June 1016)

The award of damages has been set aside by the QCAT Appeal Tribunal, and is to be re-assessed by the tribunal.

Thorne v Toowoomba Regional Council [2017] QCATA 128 (23 November 2017)

impairment, work

direct discrimination

unlawful request for information

A woman claimed the Council did not confirm her employment at the end of a probationary period because of her wrist injury. The Council claimed the reason for not continuing the employment was that the woman had not been honest in her response to an interview question.

The woman had attended two interviews and a pre-employment medical assessment. At the medical assessment the woman completed a questionnaire that disclosed the previous injury, surgery and a subsequent problem with the wrist. The examining doctor reported that there was potential impact on her ability to meet the requirements of the position, and recommended a review by an occupational therapist to determine necessary accommodations and limitations. The Council discussed the concerns with the woman and obtained a report from an occupational therapist and a further report from the doctor. The woman was then offered employment, and when she commenced work she was given a work plan outlining restrictions on her duties.

Towards the end of the probation period the Council asked the doctor how long the work restrictions were needed, and the doctor advised the restrictions should remain in place for a minimum of 2 years to prevent aggravation of the previous injury or create another over-use injury. The Council also asked the woman questions about her previous employment, and asked the previous employer for information about an aggravated injury she had endured.

The tribunal found that questions about the former workplace and to the former employer were unnecessary to the continued safe performance of the woman's work, and were directed to the risk her injuries posed if her injuries were aggravated. The Council had sought unnecessary information on which unlawful discrimination could be based, in contravention of section 124 of the Anti-Discrimination Act .

The tribunal also found that the reason for dismissing the woman was her impairment, and the attendant risk of a claim against the Council arising out of an aggravation of her injuries.

General damages: $10,000

The tribunal found the claim for economic loss was not substantiated.

On various occasions in various locations, either in public, or in circumstances where other members of the public could hear, the respondent called out you in-bred Muslims , go back to your cage you fucking monkeys etc.

The tribunal was satisfied the respondent incited contempt for or ridicule of the applicant on the ground of her race. The applicant sought an order for payment of money to a third party. The tribunal said it would be unreasonable to make the respondent pay money to a third party.

The tribunal ordered the respondent not to make any remark that may constitute racial vilification to the applicant.

This was a complaint about the way a woman with an impairment was treated at three Gold Coast theme parks in December 2013. The woman does not have a left hand, wrist or forearm.

The first incident was at Sea World, where the complainant was in a queue for the Sea Viper ride. Although the complainant was wearing an arm band issued by the park authorising her to go on the ride, the attendant pointed at her left arm and shouted to another employee has this been checked . The tribunal found the ride attendant had been insensitive and rude when seeking to clarify whether the complainant had been approved to go on the ride, and this was less favourable treatment of the complainant compared to the treatment of people without her impairment.

The second incident occurred a few days later at Wet and Wild when the complainant took the Kamikaze ride. There had been a delay in the ride and the complainant felt that other patrons were blaming her for the delay because they were pointing at her and making rude comments. At the end of the ride the attendant asked the complainant to remove the armbands from the other parks that she was wearing. The complainant asked for help to do that because she has only one hand, and the attendant told her to go to guest services. The tribunal found the attendant had not been rude when he asked the complainant to remove the armbands from other parks and that the request was not unfavourable. The tribunal said that in making the request the park did not impose a term on the complainant, and even if it was a term, it was reasonable to aid in the safe and efficient provision of services to guests of Wet and Wild. There was no direct or indirect discrimination of the complainant.

The third incident occurred the following day at Movie World when the complainant attended the guest services office. She complained that the guest services employee used the word assessed several times instead of safety-check . The tribunal found the term assessed was factual, short and not inherently nasty. The complainant did not suffer any unfavourable treatment and there was no discrimination of her.

For the insensitive and rude treatment at Sea World, the tribunal awarded $500.

The tribunal found that there was no indirect discrimination of the complainant at Wet and Wild.

The tribunal found that there was no unfavourable treatment or discrimination of the complainant at Movie World.

A man who uses a wheelchair and has a paralysed hand was required to provide fingerprints using a scanning device designed for people who can stand. It caused him considerable effort to lift up each arm to the scanning plate, and keep his arm in that position while the prints were being taken. The operator repeatedly opened the curled fingers of his paralysed hand to try, unsuccessfully, to scan for fingerprints.

The tribunal found that the fingerprint process was prolonged, demeaning and intrusive. It was not reasonable to require a wheelchair-user with a paralysed hand to undergo the process using the fixed cabinet scanning device. The device was not designed for that use and the requirement was not in accord with the published policies of the Police Service about dealing with vulnerable persons with disabilities. [61]

It was reasonable to attempt to obtain prints from a paralysed hand by manually opening fingers, but unreasonable to repeat the process. Manually opening paralysed fingers several times amounted to indirect discrimination.

The man who uses a wheelchair also needed to collect a document from the prosecutor's office to use in a court proceeding. The office was on an upper floor and there was no lift. Buzzers were used to gain entrance through closed doors, and he had to call out repeatedly to get attention and have the document brought down to him.

The tribunal found that, while frustrating, the system in place to provide access for persons with mobility difficulties to an area not normally open to the public was not unreasonable. The option was also available to him to have the document emailed or posted.

General damages of $8,000 for emotional distress and physical discomfort in the fingerprinting episode.

The tribunal suggested that the respondent should look at improving the system of physical access to the prosecutor's office for people for mobility impairment.

The complainant wanted to apply for an advertised position as a console operator at a petrol station using the online application system. He was required to complete mandatory fields giving his date of birth and gender, and to upload documents proving his right to work in Australia.

The tribunal found that the questions were discriminatory, as the information at the application stage was not necessary for any lawful purpose.

The tribunal also found that the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act is not inconsistent with the federal Migration Act 1958 under which it is an offence to employ an unlawful non-citizen .

Total compensation of $5,000 was awarded for the embarrassment and humiliation, as well as for the 'loss of a chance' (to be employed).

By the time of the hearing Woolworths had taken steps to change the online application form.

At a staff Christmas party a female boss asked a female worker to join in a threesome and said that she wanted to experiment with people she knew . This was found to constitute sexual harassment. (Earlier comments about not wearing undies and showing her breasts were held not to amount to sexual harassment.)

The worker was subsequently subjected to bullying and harassment by the boss. The investigation into the complaints of sexual harassment and bullying was unsatisfactory and contributed to psychological injury. The sexual harassment played a material role in causing the psychological injury.

Total award $9,000.

Non-financial loss (personal injury and the offence, embarrassment, humiliation and intimidation): $40,000

Past financial loss (using gross figures for the purpose of tax): $51,895

Interest on past financial loss: $3,892

Future financial loss (net of tax): $6,430

Total award: $102,217.

religious belief or activity and family responsibilities, the administration of state laws & programs

indirect discrimination

$3,000.00 compensation for the discrimination, to be dealt with in accordance with Chapter 6 Part 12B of the Corrective Services Act 2006.

Total award: $3,000.

pregnancy in work

Lost income: $1,500

General damages: $3,000

Total award: $4,500

sexual harassment, sex and age in work

direct discrimination

Award for non-financial loss ( $22,000 less WorkCover lump sum $13,274): $8,726

Financial loss: $23,833

Interest on financial loss: $2,931

Total award: $35,490

(Note the individual respondent to pay $4,500 of the total award.)

race discrimination in education and goods or services areas; victimisation and racial vilification

Refund of fees paid for course: $22,787

General damages of $3,500 each for discrimination, victimisation an vilification: $10,500

Total award: $33,287

Similar claim brought by complainant in Casey v Flanagan [2011] QCAT 320 (8 July 2011).

General damages for sexual harassment & racial vilification (including interest): $10,000

Restraining orders made in relation to engaging in further sexual harassment and racial vilification.

Total award: $10,000

race in work

Affirmed on appeal; see State of Qld v Barney [2013] QCATA 104 (1 May 2013).

General Damages: $40,000.00

Interest on general damages: $8,416.00

Past economic loss: $21,089.00

Interest on past economic loss: $4,420.25

Past Superannuation: $2,779.56

Total award: $76,704.81

impairment in work

General damages: $10,000

The Member invited the respondent to provide an apology, but did not order one.

Total award: $10,000

General damages: $5,000

Future medical expenses: $3,000

Total award: $8,000

Individual respondent liable for damages.

impairment in work

direct and indirect discrimination

QCAT decision set aside on appeal; see State of Qld v Chivers [2013] QCATA 256, 23 September 2013.

Appeal tribunal decision affirmed on appeal to the Court of Appeal; see Chivers v State of Qld [2014] QCA 141, 13 June 2014.

Graduate nurse not able to work night shifts due to medical condition (a headache disorder from a previous head injury) – probationary period extended a number of times and permanent employment not confirmed. Finding of direct discrimination. Also indirect discrimination - the term (registered nurses in 24/7 wards must be capable of working across all shifts) not reasonable. The genuine occupational requirement argument to work all shifts was not made out by the employer.

General damages: $18,000

Interest on general damages: $2,700

Economic loss claim refused

Total award: $20,700

Note: Set aside on appeal

impairment in accommodation

direct discrimination

Upheld on appeal; see Sully v Skinner [2012] QCATA 250, 26 November 2012.

General damages including interest: $13,000

Total award: $13,000

impairment in work

General damages: $5,000

Total award: $5,000

General damages for vilification (including interest): $10,000

General damages for sexual harassment (including interest): $5,000

Total award: $15,000

General damages: $5,000

Total award: $5,000

political belief or activity and association in work

direct discrimination

Decision appealed; see Cairns Regional Council v Carey [2012] QCATA 150, 21 August 2012.
On appeal, future economic loss reduced by $40,000 to $10,000 and the amount for future medical expenses was set aside.

Complaint against shire council and councillors by a manager at the council whose employment contract was terminated. Finding - the sacking was a political payback against a political opponent. The manager was in a de facto relationship with a woman who was the leader of an environmental lobby group which was opposing the councillors.

General damages: $30,000.00

Interest on general damages: $3,600.00

Past economic loss: $211,365.75

Interest on past economic loss: $21,136.00

Economic loss: $26,376.00

Interest on economic loss: $375.00

Future economic loss: $10,000.00

Loan costs (early repayment fees): $18,813.33

Past medical expenses: $366.98

Future medical expenses: $0.00

Total award: $322,033.06

Unlawful requests for information portion successful – apology ordered.

No financial compensation.

sexual harassment, pregnancy in work

direct discrimination

Woman on section 457 employment visa worked in a restaurant. If her employment was terminated, entitlement to remain and work in Australia was threatened.
Sexual harassment by the owner (putting arm round her, rubbing knee and thigh, over familiar touching, expressed feelings of physical attraction, sexually suggestive emails.)
The woman became pregnant and advised the employer she would be taking maternity leave. Employer was under the impression that he would have to continue to pay her during maternity leave (as part of visa requirements) and believed this was financially unviable. Her 457 visa was cancelled and employment terminated.

The complaint by her partner who also worked at the restaurant and was terminated was unsuccessful. He claimed association discrimination.

General damages for sexual harassment incl interest: $2,650.00

General damages for pregnancy discrimination: $15,000.00

Interest on pregnancy discrim: $900.00

Economic loss: $33,147.60

Interest on economic loss: $4,000.00

Total award: $55,697.60