Wright v Commissioner of Police [2014] NSWCATAP 67

Wright v Commissioner of Police [2014] NSWCATAP 67

The Tribunal and Appeal Panel determined that, in respect of indirect discrimination, the requirement to attend work as rostered did not disproportionately impact employees with carer's responsibilities, was reasonable in all the circumstances, and Mr Wright was able to comply. For direct discrimination, it was found (and affirmed on appeal) that refusal of Mr Wright's transfer application was partly on the ground of his carer's responsibilities, which constituted direct discrimination under s 49T(1)(a). Victimisation complaints concerning disciplinary warnings were not justiciable by the Tribunal due to statutory exclusion in the Police Act.

Parties
Appellant/respondent: Grant Hilton Wright; Respondent/appellant: Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Both Mr Wright's and the Commissioner's appeals dismissed. Tribunal's orders upheld.
Legal Topics
Indirect Discrimination, Direct Discrimination, Victimisation, Carer's Responsibilities, Statutory Construction, Comparative Groups, Reasonableness, Police Employment
Equal Opportunity Employment Law Anti Discrimination Indirect Discrimination Direct Discrimination Victimisation Carer's Responsibilities Statutory Construction +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grant Hilton Wright

Appellant/respondent

Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer's leave and transfer policies constituted unlawful indirect discrimination against an employee with carer's responsibilities under s 49T(1)(b) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
  2. 2 Whether the refusal of a transfer application constituted direct discrimination under s 49T(1)(a) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
  3. 3 Whether disciplinary warnings for absence amounted to unlawful victimisation under s 50 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 and if the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review those warnings

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal and Appeal Panel determined that, in respect of indirect discrimination, the requirement to attend work as rostered did not disproportionately impact employees with carer's responsibilities, was reasonable in all the circumstances, and Mr Wright was able to comply. For direct discrimination, it was found (and affirmed on appeal) that refusal of Mr Wright's transfer application was partly on the ground of his carer's responsibilities, which constituted direct discrimination under s 49T(1)(a). Victimisation complaints concerning disciplinary warnings were not justiciable by the Tribunal due to statutory exclusion in the Police Act.

Court Disposition

Both Mr Wright's and the Commissioner's appeals dismissed. Tribunal's orders upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal No 14/0037 dismissed
  • Appeal No 14/0038 dismissed