Khoury -V- A.C & E Pty Limited [1998] NSWEOT

Khoury -V- A.C & E Pty Limited [1998] NSWEOT

The Tribunal found that the Complainant was a physically handicapped person because his hearing impairment limited his opportunities to enjoy a full and active life. It accepted that both unsatisfactory work performance and hearing impairment were grounds for the 19 March 1993 dismissal, but found the hearing impairment was an operative and decisive ground. The dismissal adversely affected the terms and conditions of employment and subjected the Complainant to detriment, making the Respondent liable under ss.49B(2)(a) and 49B(2)(c) read with s.49A(1).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 April 1998
Procedural Posture
Complaint of Physical Impairment Discrimination Under the Anti Discrimination Act, 1977 / Judgment After Hearing on Liability and Relief
Outcome
Complaint substantiated; judgment in favour of the Complainant.
Legal Topics
['physical Impairment Discrimination' 'employment Dismissal' 'physically Handicapped Person' 'less Favourable Treatment' 'damages']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'employment Law'] ['physical Impairment Discrimination' 'employment Dismissal' 'physically Handicapped Person' 'less Favourable Treatment' 'damages']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Complaint of Physical Impairment Discrimination Under the Anti Discrimination Act, 1977 / Judgment After Hearing on Liability and Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Complainant was a physically handicapped person within the meaning of the Anti-Discrimination Act, 1977.' 'Whether the Respondent dismissed or subjected the Complainant to detriment on the ground of his hearing impairment contrary to ss.49A(1) and 49B(2) of the Act.' "Whether the Complainant's hearing impairment was an operative ground of the dismissal even if unsatisfactory work performance was also a reason." 'Whether the dismissal on 19 March 1993 caused economic or non-economic loss or damage.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Complainant was a physically handicapped person because his hearing impairment limited his opportunities to enjoy a full and active life. It accepted that both unsatisfactory work performance and hearing impairment were grounds for the 19 March 1993 dismissal, but found the hearing impairment was an operative and decisive ground. The dismissal adversely affected the terms and conditions of employment and subjected the Complainant to detriment, making the Respondent liable under ss.49B(2)(a) and 49B(2)(c) read with s.49A(1).

Court Disposition

Complaint substantiated; judgment in favour of the Complainant.

Orders

  • ['The complaint has been substantiated.' 'The Respondent is to pay the Complainant within 21 days damages in the sum of $15,000, comprised of $12,000 for economic loss and $3,000 for non-economic loss.' 'The Complainant is directed to contact the Registry within 7 days if he wishes to make an application for costs.']