Martin -v- McKensey (No. 2) [2003] NSWADT 126

Martin -v- McKensey (No. 2) [2003] NSWADT 126

The complaint failed because there was no evidence that the applicant's depression had a causally operative effect on the employer's insistence that her employment had been changed to part-time on an ongoing basis; the dispute was essentially about the contractual effect of the August 1996 discussions, which the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to resolve as a breach of contract claim. The victimisation claim also failed because there was no evidence that the applicant had alleged a contravention of the Anti-Discrimination Act in her Industrial Relations Commission matter or that her receptionist application was considered other than on its merits.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Disability Discrimination in Work Complaint / Principal Matter
Outcome
Complaint not substantiated and dismissed.
Legal Topics
['disability Discrimination in Employment' 'direct Discrimination' 'victimisation' 'liability for Causing Unlawful Acts' 'change From Full Time to Part Time Employment']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'employment Law'] ['disability Discrimination in Employment' 'direct Discrimination' 'victimisation' 'liability for Causing Unlawful Acts' 'change From Full Time to Part Time Employment']

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

Disability Discrimination in Work Complaint / Principal Matter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the employer discriminated against the applicant on the ground of disability by changing her employment status from full-time to part-time.' 'Whether the respondent could be liable under s 52 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 for causing the employer to act unlawfully.' 'Whether the employer victimised the applicant by failing to properly consider her application for a part-time receptionist position because she had lodged proceedings in the Industrial Relations Commission of NSW.']

Ratio Decidendi

The complaint failed because there was no evidence that the applicant's depression had a causally operative effect on the employer's insistence that her employment had been changed to part-time on an ongoing basis; the dispute was essentially about the contractual effect of the August 1996 discussions, which the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to resolve as a breach of contract claim. The victimisation claim also failed because there was no evidence that the applicant had alleged a contravention of the Anti-Discrimination Act in her Industrial Relations Commission matter or that her receptionist application was considered other than on its merits.

Court Disposition

Complaint not substantiated and dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Complaint dismissed' 'No order for costs']