Browne v NSW Ambulance Service [2004] NSWADT 192

Browne v NSW Ambulance Service [2004] NSWADT 192

The Respondent directly discriminated against the Applicant within the meaning of section 49D(1)(b) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) by refusing to process his employment application due to his protanopia, relying solely on optometric testing without properly considering his individual skills, experience, and ability to perform the inherent requirements of the role. The Respondent failed to prove that the Applicant was unable to carry out the inherent requirements and thus did not make out its defence under section 49D(4).

Parties
Applicant: David Browne; Respondent: NSW Ambulance Service
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Disability Discrimination – Employment / Final Decision – Merits
Outcome
Complaint substantiated – Discrimination found
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination in Employment, Inherent Requirements of Employment, Direct Discrimination, Defences (unjustifiable Hardship, Inherent Requirements)
Anti Discrimination Law Employment Law Disability Discrimination in Employment Inherent Requirements of Employment Direct Discrimination Defences (unjustifiable Hardship, Inherent Requirements)

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Browne

Applicant

NSW Ambulance Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Disability Discrimination – Employment / Final Decision – Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent directly discriminated against the Applicant on the ground of disability under s 49D(1)(b) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant could carry out the inherent requirements of the positions sought, considering his disability (protanopia)
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent proved that the Applicant was unable to carry out the inherent requirements of the positions either alone or with assistance

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondent directly discriminated against the Applicant within the meaning of section 49D(1)(b) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) by refusing to process his employment application due to his protanopia, relying solely on optometric testing without properly considering his individual skills, experience, and ability to perform the inherent requirements of the role. The Respondent failed to prove that the Applicant was unable to carry out the inherent requirements and thus did not make out its defence under section 49D(4).

Court Disposition

Complaint substantiated – Discrimination found

Orders

  • The complaint is substantiated.
  • The Respondent is to process the Applicant's application for employment.